Works

CD

•CM
= O

loo

WV

P*!

M't

WWM

:

w

m

wy

m

«

vv^V,v-,wV-

KWtf:

w ' w W , 3' - ' v V v'

T H r,

WORKS

OF T II K

RIGHT REVEREND

WILLIAM WARBURTON, D.D

LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.

A NEW EDITION,
IN TWELVE VOLUMES.

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED

A DISCOURSE BY WA\T OF GENERAL PREFACE;

CONTAINING

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE, WRITINGS, AND CHARACTER
OF THE AUTHOR;

B Y R I C H A R D HUE D, D.D. ry

LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER. *J\

VOLUME THE TWELFTH. A

Printed by Luke Hansard rf- Sons, near Lincrin's-Inn Fields,

FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, IN THE STRAND.

I SI I,

CONTENTS

o F

VOL. XII.

, ,

CONTROVERSIAL TRACTS;

PART II.

I.— REMARKS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONAL
REFLECTIONS;

PAET II. and Last — continued - - pp. i — 59

IL— LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE " LETTERS on
the Spirit of Patriotism, The Idea of a Patriot King, and
The State of Parties, #c." occasioned by the Editor's
Advertisement - pp. do — 70

III.— A VIEW OF LORD BOLINGBROKE'S PHILO

SOPHY, complete, in Four Letters to a Friend; fn
which his whole System of infidelity and Naturalism is
exposed and confuted: — With an APOLOGY FOR THE
TWO FIRST LETTEES, prefixed: - - pp. 71 — 340

IV.— REMARKS ON Mr. DUVID HUME'S ESSAY ON

" The Natural History of Religion " - pp. 341 — 37$

V.— REMARKS ON NEAL'S " History of the Puritans?
entered in an Edition of that Work in the Library at
.Durham - - pp. 377— 404

CONTEXTS OF TWELFTH VOLUME.

VI. — A LETTER from an AUTHOR to a MEMBER OF
PARLIAMENT; concerning LITERARY PROPERTY,

PP- 405—416

APPENDIX:

CONTAINING

LETTERS, between Dr. MIODLETON and Mr. WAR-
BUKTON, in 1736; and between Dr. LOWTH and
D*. WAR BURTON, ii> 1756 - - pp. 417 —

REMARKS

' ON SEVERAL

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS,

IN ANSWER TO

The REV. DRS. STEBBING and SYKES:

Serving to explain and justify the two Dissertations in the
Divine Legation, concerning the command to Abraham to
offer up his Son ; and the Nature of the Jewish Theocracy ;
Objected to by those. Learned Writers.

PART II. and Lnft— continued.

SOON after the publication of Dr. STEBBING>
Examination ; another Book came out against me,
as much larger in bulk as honester in ks production :
for it carried the name of its Author, Dr. A. A. Sykes,
in the front. To this Gentleman, likewise, I sent a civil
message; to inform him, that I had seen his Book,, in
\\hich he likewise professes to " examine my Account"
(for they are all Examiners, and would be Inquisitors^
" of the Conduct of the Ancient Legislators — of the
" Double Doctrine of the Philosophers — of the THEO-
" CRACY OF THE JEWS — and of Sir /. Newton's
" Chronology :" That I supposed he would think him
self neglected to have no notice taken of him : that I
\vas not at leisure to go through the whole ; but that if
he would point out to me which of the Four Parts he
chose to -trust to, I would endeavour to give him the
satisfaction he seemed to want. To this, he sent me
\vord back, " That he should not be, in the least, concern-
" ed, were I to forbear ail notice of him : but, if I took
" any, that he hoped I would keep to the merits of his
" Book : that he was not to chuse for me ; but that he
" thought, one or two of the parts were more immediately
" to the purpose to clear up : but expected that this
" should be done in such a manner as every good man
VOL, XII. 13 '" wishes;

2 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" wishes ; in the love of truth, and in the spirit of one
" that seeks it: and that then I should find, in him, a
" mind open to conviction.'' All this was very well ;:
and, from the reasonableness of the demand, who
would not believe, but his book was a- standard of
candour, politeness, and ingenuity? at least, who would
have suspected the contrary? So that his civil prelimi
nary, when interpreted on the principles of the Double-
Doctrine, is in plain English this, — That the liberties
which he and old holiest Mr. P. have so freely taken*
with my book and character,- should be entirely over
looked, or received as compliments : and that I should
address myself to their conviction; as to the service of
my two best friends, who wrote only to recommend the
truths I had advanced ; by putting me in a way to re
move all doubts and difficulties concerning them. " And
" therefore, that I should keep to the merits of his
11 book;" that is,., be tender of his bad logic, and worse
criticism ; overlook, his ill expression ; anil find out his-
meaning if I can. And, indeed, who would not engage
in any labour for the sake of finding so rare a curiosity,,
as a " mind open to conviction*." in an Answerer by pro*
fcssion ? Well then, be it so. Since they profess to Iyer
so opm, let them be received with good humour, at least,,
and suffered only to expose themselves ;

" Laugh where we must, be candid where we can,
" But vindicate the WAYS OF GOD to Man."

However, this is a mere act of good- will ; and what the
Doctor has not the least claim to ; as may be seen by the
preliminary conversation between him and his old friend
Mr. P. part of which I- shall here beg leave tQ transcribe
for the reader's entertainment :

" You know very well (says Dr. .Sykes to the Rev.
" Gent, to whom lie addresses his Examination) our
" old friend Mr. P*** ; he calls Mr. IFarburton's book
w a learned Romance; and he says, WITH SOME
" HUMOU R, that the digressions in it about the Mysteries,
" the Hieroglyphics*, the Book of Job, are, or may be

" deemed,

* Foreigners seem to have a different opinion of The Divine
iottt from these two learned friends. The Journal dcs Sgavanz,
l/'4-K in ail Abstract of. a French translation of part of 27/e
13 Divine-

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 3

" deemed, so many ingenious Novels, which serve to
" relieve or divert the reader. J3at then he goes so far
<( as to doubt whether Mr. Warburton writes for utility
" or for truth. For he has told us so much (says he)
" about the practices of those old Philosophers, and
" how much they were wont to lie for the public good-~
" and he declares himself to have come from the schools
" of those Heathen Philosophers, THAT I CANNOT BUT

" THINK HE MAY BE REASONABLY SUSPECTED tO

" have received an infection from them, and to hove
" learnt to lie for the public good, as his masters did
"" before him. It is true (says our friend) that Mr.
" Warburton does not think those men to be altogether
" free from blame ; and it may be said in his favour,
" that what he blames a little in them, he would not do
" himself: but yet his censure of themis so very soft,
" and he is so tender of their moral character, while he
" is so ready to flame out against, and to shew no mercv

" to

Dhine Legation, speaks thus'of the discourse on the Hieroglyphics:
" II regne une si belle analogic dans le systeme de JM. Y>'ai burton,
" & tomes ses parties tiennent les ut;es aux aatres par un lien si
" naturel, qu'on est porie a croire que Torigine & les progres de
" 1'Ecriture & dn Language out ele tels qu'il Jes a deems. Le
" Public doit avoir bien de ^obligation au Tradu&eur de lui avoir
" fait connoitre un Ouvrage si curieux. Mais il auroit et6 a
" souhaiter, pour rend re la Irfture de sa traduciion plus agreable,
4t qu'il ne se fut pas si fort attache a rendre mot a mot le texte
" Anglois."

The judgment of the Jesuits of TreTotuc, in their Journal of July
1744, differs not much from that of Paris. " M. War burton n'a
pu, sans une erudition profonde, une lecture inurement digerea
& des reflexions ' infinies trailer avec cant de precision, de jus-
tesse, & deTiettete, un sujet de lui meme si difficile a mettre eri

oeuvre Les plus savans homines se sent laisse seduire sur

1'origine des Hieroglyphes, & la plupart ont regarde un effet da
peu d'experience rfcs Egyptians, comme un rafinernent ae la plus
mysterieuse sagesse, C'est cette erreur que M. Warbu1 ton
s'applique particulierement a detruire dans la premiere parti?.
II }e fait de la maniere la plus natuielle— — ce n'tst point un
Systeme fonde suit DES IMAGINATIONS VAGUES. Ses raison-
nctnens, ses preuves, sent appuiees sur des FA ITS, sur la NATURB
des chosen, <fe sur les principes Its plus lumineux du SENS
JCOMMUN." But as to this last testimony, I shall not chuse to
jnsist upon it; lest it should be norv said, that these famous mo
dern practisers of the Double Doftrine, and the Apologist for the
ancient inventors of it, hud too close an understanding vrith out
-another. ^ 2

4 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" to others, who do not think as he does, that one cannot
" help imagining, that in his opinion, the good end they
" had in view, did sanctify the means they used, and that
" it was no great fault in- them to have external and in-
" ternal doctrines* ;." <§ur. £$c. Now a man so apt to
Jiame out would have been as apt to call this a piece of
dull scurrilous buffbonry, in another writer; but in so
candid a disputant as Dr. Syk-es, who writes, we see by
his own words, " in the love of truth, and in the spirit
of one who seeks it," I can consider it only as the effect
of a pious zeal for the interests of Revelation, which is
apt to warm itself in a conversation- between two such
friends; and a charitable fear that the author of the
Divine Legation was indeed artfully undermining the
foundation, while he pretended to new-fortify the struc
ture of Religion: and they, good mer^ as faithful sentinels,
thought it their duty to give the alarm. But here, their
candid simplicity of manners, which makes them utter
strangers to all the tricks of free- thinking, has put them
upon a false cry. It would be charity therefore to set'
them right; and, as they have minds so open to convic
tion, indeed but justice. And, for this, all the return I
ask, is only to share with them in the pleasure, which a
clear conviction, that their suspicions were groundless,
must needs give them.

In order, therefore, to this, it would seem sufficient to
observe, that if indeed the Divine Legation were written
to undermine Revelation, and (as is said) by an author
initiated in " the cabinet councils of old lawgivers," and
just come " from school, from Heathen Philosophers,"
he must have learnt very little of his masters : for it is-
certainly the most bungling, ill-contrived attempt that was
ever made against Revelation. But if this be not enough,
let us go further, and consider how an artful Freethinker
would probably have executed such a design as is here
laid to my charge. And the same intimacy in the cabinet
councils' of old lawgivers, and in the schools of Pagan
.philosophers, which makes it so unlikely that I could have

* An Examination of Mr. Warbiirton'* Account of the, Condud of'
the Ancient Legislators, of the Double Doctrine of the old Philo
sophers, of the Theocracy of the Jews, and of Sir Isaac Newton's
'Chronology, 17.44-

dona

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 5

no better on so good a ground ; may enable me to
shew how well a scheme of this nature might be executed
by another :- As the many unhappy examples we have
amongst us, of real attempts against Religion, will enable
the reader to judge how near I keep to probability. And
thus qualified, I take the liberty to set our Undcrininer
to work.

In the first place, I will suppose it not unlikely, that, -in
order to conceal his purpose, as well as to carry on his
attacks more regularly, he should begin with an outwork
of Religion, on pretence of some defect in its construction,
that might prejudice the defence of tliejbrt -itself. For
instance, let us suppose it -to be -that illustrious testimoay
of Paganism, recorded by P Megan, for the unnatural
darkness at the Crucifixion*. Where some mathemati
cal unbeliever might very fitly serve him in the post of
.engineer. When he had tried what could be made of
tihis, he might then come closer to his work.

And, as MIRACLES and PROPHECIES are the two great
credentials of the Divine "Legation of Jesus, he might
now proceed directly to the sap.

And first, of the Miracles. The distempers cured :by
Jesus were of two sorts; natural, and supernatural.
When the latter ar,e removed, the other (as .the Free
thinkers tell us) are easily dealt with. The force of
imagination, in the patient, Riight be supposed to go a
great way ; and natural virtue, in the agent, a greajt
-way farther. Thus, long since (say they) distempers fled
at Vespasian^ touch ; and very lately at Abbe Parish
•tomb : but, in the still more famous case of Greatrakes
the Irish Stroker, both causes seemed to concur to pro
duce the most extraordinary effects. But neither natural
virtue, I wist, nor force of imagination, could fright
-the Devil. Here now is a difficulty worthy .of l\im,

; Nunc animis opus, JEiaea'4! .nunc pectore firmo.
What has he then to do, but, -under pretence of freeing
the Gospel-history from superstition, to write the Scrip
ture Doctrine of Demoniacs*]', that is, to persuade us

* See a Dissertation on the^Eclips* mentioped by Phlcgon — By
.A. A. Sykes, D.D.. 173?.

t See An Enquiry iato the Meaning of the Demoniacs in 'the
New Testament, 1737.

B 3 that

6 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

that there never was any? For you must know, the
Scripture Doctrine of a thing, is the phrase in fashion,
to prove — nothing. And in this service he would have
the hardy and valiant Hobbcs for his precursor in the
Kingdom of Darknes** ; or his captain of light-Horse
a bat re Vestrade.

\\ e have now only one stroke more to perfect our
mine ; and that stroke is at Prophecies. Now Theology
has divided the prophecies, that relate to Jesus, into
two sorts ; such as foretcl his mission in a primary and
literal sense, and such as foretel it only in a secondary
and figurative : but the Freethinkers assure us there was
no need of this division ; for that all the prophecies,
which relate to Jesus, relate to him only in a secondary
and figurative sense. At this open, then, coiiies in our
Underminer ; and shcwsf, that all pretence of pro
phecies to a double meaning is senseless and fanatical.
And here he approaches under the cover of the great
Collins ; who had so deeply intrenched himself before
the place, that he could not of a long time be forced ;
and our Undcrminer may be excused if he too hastily^
concluded, that therefore he never 'would.

I might now turn to the learned Doctor, as little con
cerned as he is in all this ; and ask him whether this
would not be doing like a workman. I own him indeed
a very incompetent judge in such matters. His single
ness of heart, his simplicity of manners, his zeal for reli
gion, his total estrangement from Freethinkers and their
arts, make him very unfit to be appealed to on this occa
sion. Yet mcthinks there is something so striking in the
sketch here chalked out, that the most unexperienced
man must feel both its natural and moral fitness for its
end. Here we see a cautious, indeed, but a regular,
a steady, and determined purpose. The approaches are
made in form ; the trenches opened ; the battery played \
the breach stormed ; and at last the old hollow fortress

* The title given by Hohbes to the Fourth Part of his
Leviathan.

f See the Principles and Connection of Natural and Revealed
Religion distinctly' considered. By A. A. Sykes, D.D. 1740. p. 221,
& seq.

f See Divine Legation, Book VI. § 6.

of

OCCASIONAL INFLECTIONS. 7

of Religion blown up into air. If ever this should hap
pen, my main concern would be for old Mr. P. For
what must be that good man's sorrows to see the Abo
mination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place ;
•while he could start .thus at his oxen shadow? For it
must be his own and not mine if he saw infidelity so
riiear a book, whose purpose was to shew {the use of Re
ligion in general, to human Society ; and the superior
fitness of Revealed Religion in particular : the truth of
the Jewish, from the administration of an equal pro
vidence ] and the truth of the Christian, from the com
pletion of Jewish prophecies concerning it

But now 1 talk of prophecies, let me ask the learned
Doctor; but, gently in his ear, how it comes to pass,
that when it was the subject of prophecies only which
^occasioned all this hostility, he should leave my confuta
tion of his Discourse on Double Senses unanswered ;
and turn his pen to the four subjects above-mentioned?
Did this forbearance suit a hand so accustomed to
slaughter r or did this reserve indicate a mind so open
to conviction? But perhaps in this he would emulate
the great Scipio ; who. when he had lost his own, had
the courage to carry the war into his enemy's country.
I must pursue him therefore with the same disadvantage
that the Carthaginian left the rich Campania of Italy.,
to follow his adversary through the barren sands of Afric.
for the true explanation of the nature of the double
sense of prophecies (of which I had shewn he had given
£i notion destructive of the connexion between the Old
*and New Testament, through his ignorance of the very
£erms of .the question) is of the highest importance to re
ligion : whereas the subjects, foj the sake .of which he
hath forsaken this, are of infinitely less importance. And
'#hese too he has handled in so unusual a manner, that alt
wre can collect from the first of them, vn the conduct of
the ancient legislators, is, that, in his opinion, Moses
was but of the same species with the Pagan lawgivers* :

as

* That 1 do Dr. ~Sykes>no wrong, -when I say he regards Moses
as of the same species, and puts .him upon the very same footing-
with the Heathen legislators, appears from his own words: " This
^ doctrine (of a future state] was universally believed. Now
••**' Moses, as a legislator, was to lay down laws to the Jews, and he

B 4 " was

8 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

as to the double doctrine of the old philosophers, he
has fairly shewn that he knew no mere of it than of the
double sense of prophecies : and with regard to Sir I.
Newton's Chronology, he mistakes the very question;
imagining that I disputed the truth of his Greek, instead
of his Egyptian Chronology. So that indeed there was
nothing left that I could, in conscience, seize upon, but
his Discourse of the THEOCRACY of the Jews. And
this, I suppose, was the thing, which, in his answer to
my message, he alluded to, when he said, " that he
" thought one or two of the parts were more immediately
" to the purpose to clear up."

I have another reason, too, to believe that he may
esteem this the forte of his new excursions. An extra
ordinary providence to particulars, though expressly
promised by, and, as I have shewn, a necessary con
sequence of, the Law of Moses; yet, partly from the
nature of the thing, and partly from mistaken passages
of misunderstood books of Scripture, is not entirely free
from objections. Here then he thought he could do
something ; though it were but retailing the objections of
others. And truly, as ill as he has managed these ad
vantages, he was not mistaken in his choice. For the
rest — it is all over such argument ! and such criticism !
as one might well conceive should be reserved to close
the scene of letters in an age like this • when every science

,il was to incorporate their national religion into their civil law.
". This was done, not by inculcating nhatwas universally received and
" bettered by them; but by inculcating such points as were to make the
" national religion of the jews. And in this he did EXACTLY what
" olhor legislators did: what was USEFUL TO THE STATE, he ad-
" mitted into the body of his laws; and so FAR as it was useful
" to the stale, BUT FURTHER THAN THAT NEITHER HE NOR
" ZALI.UCUS CONCERNED THEMSELVES," p. 59, 6'0. In which
short period are contained these four propositions - That it is
tiot the practice of legislators to inculcate what is universal In believed — •
That a future state does not make one point of national religion —
[And for a good re'-ison. Because]-— That a future state is not use
ful to society — That, further than the &ood of the state, Moses con
cerned himself no more than Zaleucus, or G.ny other Heal hen legislator*
How much no\v has this author to r.bank me for; when, instead
of exposing the other three parts of Iiis book, which abound with
these beauties in every pagD, I confined myself to this, where the
natural obscurity of the subject hides both his blunders and"hU
blushes ?

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 9

was retiring from its professors, to DICTIONARY-
MAKERS and BOOKSELLERS.

REMARK T. — He begins his examination of the
.nature of the Jewish theocracy in this manner: — •
'" This form of government of the Jews, being properly
" called a theocracy, there are two points which Mr,
" JVarburton has largely considered. The first is, in
*' relation to the origin, continuation, and duration of this
" theocracy. The other is in relation to the exercise of
'" an extraordinary Providence over particular persons,
" as well as over the state in general. In relation to
" the former ot these points he tells us, That most
" Writers suppose it to have ended with the
" Judges, but scarce any bring it tower than the
" Captivity : on the contrary, I hold that in strict
" truth and propriety it ended not till the coming of
" Christ*. Here it is that he attacks Dr. Spencer^
*' Dissertation on the Jewish theocracy, a treatise by
*' no means in the number of those on which Spencer
" raised his reputation : he goes on a wrong
" hypothesis; he uses weak arguments; and he
" is confused and inconsistent in his assertions}'.
" Are we not now, from hence, to imagine, that Dr.
" Spencer was one of those writers that supposed the
c theocracy to have ended with the Judges, or, at
c furthest, with the Captivity? And yet Mr. ffrar burton
" is forced to own that Spencer " supposes" [I say he
positively asserts] " that some obscure footsteps of
" it remained to the time oj' Christ. Yes, and longer
' too, for his words are, ad extrema usque politics su&
" tempora, i. e. quite to the latter times of their
" policy, even to the last times of expiring Judaism^"
I had observed, that most U7riters suppose the theo-
pracy to hare ended with the Judges; scarce any
bring it lower than the Captivity ; I myself suppose
it continued to the time of Christ: that Dr. Spencer
wrote a weak and inconsistent treatise on this subject.
Well, and what says our Answerer to this ? " Are we

* Div. Leg. Book V. § 3. init. f Ibid.

+ An Examination of Mr. Warburton's Account, £c. i6s — 1/0.

" not

to REMARKS ON SEVERAL

*e not DOW (says he) from hence to IMAGINE that Dr,
^ Spencer was one of those Writers that supposed the
" theocracy to have ended with the Judges ? " * What
demands of imagination his trade may have upon him
is hard to say. JBut, froai my words, a reasoner would
Conclude nothing but that I meant to prove what I said;
namely, that Dr. Spencer's Book of the theocracy was
weak and inconsistent. Eew Answerers have stuck at
*i misrepresentation ; but then it was to carry on their
business, the manufactory of false argument. Our
Examiner, on the contrary, seerns to do it only to
keep his hand in use ; for argument he could make
-?ione, though he had the laying together of his owia
premisses. In a word, the whole is a studied mis
representation of all I said on this subject. The
jnethod of which was as follows : first, to shew*, that
the theocracy continued to the time of Christ.
Secondly, to confute Le Clerc's arguments for its
c :ising with the Judges. And this makes up the body
of the Discourse concerning the duration of the
theocracy. Having done this, I proceeded in these
words — Thus the dispute ended [namely between Le
Clerc and P. Sinton]; and for further satisfaction
Le Clerc refers us to a Book of Spencer's, written
professedly upon this very subject. It is his tract
De Theocratia Judaica. What is to be found there,
besides the arguments Le Clerc borrowed from it,
and which have been considered already, I shall now,
teirh some reluctancy, inform the Reader f.. Then I
go on to give a character of this Tract, as quoted by the
Examiner. And to justify this character, I consider
what is there said that may seem to contradict what I
had before observed concerning the duration- of the
theocracy. Now the Reader sees that this is only an
accessory to the body of the discourse, given, partly,
to enervate the authority which Le Clerc built upon
it ; and partly, to strengthen and conirm what had
been advanced by myself. Yet our simple-minded
Doctor, after having concealed all thi§, says (quoting
the beginning of Sect. 3. Book V«) " HERE it is that

* Div. Leg. Book V. § IIL t Ibid,

he

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 1 1

he attacks Dr. Spencers Dissertation;" whenas the
very mention of Dr. Spencer docs not commence
till fourteen pages afterwards : and, as if that were
not enough, goes on in this manner : — " Are we not now
4' from hence to imagine that Dr. Spencer was one of
" those Writers that supposed the theocracy to have
c( ended with the Judges? $c. And yet Mr. W. is
" FORCED to own that Spencer supposes,'' 8$c. I should
not have been so long in laying open so immaterial a
cheat, but as it was convenient the Header should, on his
first acquaintance with our Doctor, be let a little into his
manners,

IT. But he will not only shew, that my arraigning
Spencer was absurd ; but that the charge against him is
unjust. " His first charge against him is, that he thought
" the theocracy was established by degrees, and abro-
" gated by degrees. A conceit highly absurd (says
" Mr. Warburton) as God was legislator. But wherein
" lies the absurdity of this gradual progress and gradual
" declension, even in cases where God was legislator?
" 1 suppose he will say that the theocracy began at the
." instant of the Horeb covenant; and not when the
" Children of Israel were delivered from Egypt ^ and
fe were first under the immediate protection of God. —
" But Spencer INTENDED BY HIS WORD THEOCRACY,
" all the time that the Jews were under the direct power
""and immediate dominion of God; which certainly
" began at the deliverance of the Jews hom+Egypt,
"• and \vas completed in the highest and fullest sense at
*l the Horeb covenant, when God was constituted their
".King*." I called Spencer's notion of the gradual
progress and gradual declension of a theocracy, an
ABSURDITY. He says, no: and how does he prove it
is not? By shewing, that, by the word theocracy,
Spencer meant a thing which gradually arose and
gradually declined. But is not this tie very absurdity
I complain of? I call an opinion absurd: and he, to
free it from this censure, tells us — what that opinion is.
But as I do not suppose he will be ever able to ansvver
question, I will try if I can answer his — " Wherein

* Exam, of Mr. W's Account, &c. p. 170, 171.

« lies

12 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

x< lies the absurdity of this gradual progress and gradual
" declension even in the cases where God \vas legis-
" lator?" The absurdity, learned Sir, lies here: whea
God is pleased to assume the character of Civil Ma
gistrate, he must, like all other magistrates, enter on hi%
office at once ; and (as common sense requires) leave it
at once. Now the government, under such a magistrate,
is, what we properly call a THEOCRACY : therefore to
talk of the gradual progress and gradual declension
of this mode of civil relation, is the same absurdity as to
talk of the gradual progress and gradual declension
of paternity, or any other mode of natural relation.
Whether this was a blunder or a sophism, is of no con
sequence ; if the detection of it does but shew the Reader
what good reason I had to suppose, that the theocracy
began at the instant of the Horeb covenant; an$
iiow much Spencer wag mistaken in the use of the term,
if he intended by it, ail the time that the Jews were
under the direct power and immediate dominion of
God. For, in that case, he should have used the word
legislature, and not theocracy. — But I had best stop
here, lest this new distinction should still further embar
rass this able advocate of Dr. Spencer.

III. However, he goes on to support his reason-ing in
this manner: — " So when Dr. Spencer speaks of its
"" declining gradually — of the government of God
being lessened — of its making a nearer approach
to its ceasing, I think., if there be any absurdity or
inconsistency in this manner of speaking, it may be
" justified by Mr. Warburtoris own authority. He
" himself tells us, that indeed in the period immediately
preceding their [the Jews] captivity, on the gradual
i withdrawing the extraordinary providence from
" them — they began to entertain doubts concerning
" God's further peculiar regard to them as his
" chosen people*. So that he here expressly owns
" a GRADUAL WITHDRAWING of the extraordinary
" providence from the Jews. And where is the ab-
" surdity of Dr. Spencer's gradual declension or jmmi-
'" nution of the theocracy, which Mr. IVarburtoii^

* Div. Leg. Book V. § 2.

4i gradual

46

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. ij

w gradual withdrawing of the extraordinary providence
** is not liable unto ? or was not the gradual withdrawing.
" of the extraordinary providence a proper imminution
" of the theocracy*?" He is so fond of this argument
,thathe repeats it again at p. 218. " Dr. SpfiNCERano!
'*"' Mr. WARBURTON seem to express themselves so
'"' exactly alike about the imininution o F THE THEOCRACY,
" that one would wonder how it should happen that Dr.
" Spencer 's notion is a conceit highly absurd, and Mr.
"' War bur tons should be so consistent, and easy, and
u. natural." To all this I answer, that our advocate has
here fairly convicted himself of a degree of ignorance
that I never would have ventured to suspect of him,
which is, the not knowing the difference between the

FORM OF GOVERNMENT and the ADMINISTRATION of

it. Now Dr. Spencer talked of a gradual decline of the
form of government ; which I thought absurd. I, of
the gradual decline of the administration of it L; which,
whether it be equally absurd, may be seen by a parallel
instance. For though, not long since, I spoke of paral
lels, similitudes, and resemblances, as weak instruments
for the discovery of truth ; yet they are often of more use
than better things for the detection of falsehood. If I
should say then, that there was, during the reigns of
James the First and Charles the Second, a gradual
withdrawing the protection of the people, and the equal
administration of justice ; I should speak, I presume,
both sense and truth : yet if Oldmixon himself should
affirm that there was, during this period, a gradual with
drawing of the monarchy ; I should go near to say, he
talked as much like a fool in this, as he talks like a knave
in most other parts of his History.

IV. Well, tut our Advocate will go further; and

shew, that though Dr. Spencer be consistent, yet I an*

not. — " I will observe further (says he) Dr. Spencer

" maintains that some obscure footsteps of the theo-

* cracy remained even to the time of Christ. And

1 Mr. JFarburton holds it ended not till the coming

'" of Christ f. Dr. Spencer is consistent; but it k

* Exam, of Mr. fPs Account, £r. p. 171, 172.
f Div. Leg. Book V. * 2,

" far

14 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" far from being clear that Mr. Warburton is so.
" For he hath told us, that in the period iinmedi-
" ately preceding the Captivity, there was a gradual
" withdrawing of the extraordinary providence*. In
" another place he tells us, that ajter their perfect
" settlement on their return from captivity (when
" we know, from' the course and progress of God's
" economy, the extraordinary providence would
" cease) we hear no more of it amongst them, nor
" did they make the least pretence to it, though they
" now adhered much more strictly to their religion,
" than they had ever done before. They pretended
" not — to either prophets, oracles, or extraordinary
" dispensation*^. Here Mr. l^arburton mentions
" the misfortune at Eethsura, caused by the sabba-
(< tical year ; a misfortune of which we have no
" instance before the Captivity, and therefore a
" plain proof, that the extraordinary providence
" was indeed withdrawn^. Again ; the extraor-
" dinary providence kept gradually decaying, till
" on their full settlemc7it after their return it en-
" tirely ceased §. From thefe assertions of Mr.
" Warburton I argue, that if the EXTRAORDINARY
" PROVIDENCE entirely ceased on the full settlement
" of the Jews after their return, it ceased some centuries
" at least before the days of Christ; and CONSE-
" QUENTLT the THEOCRACY must have ceased some
" centuries before the days of Christ. How then is
" Mr. Warburton more consistent about the duration
" of the theocracy than others are, since he pleads for
" its continuance till Christ's time, and yet maintains
" that it entirely ceased so long before his time || ? "

The argument, we see, gathers as it rolls. In the be
ginning, The ceasing of an extraordinary providence
only implied, in consequence the ceasing of the theo
cracy. But, before we get to the end of the sentence,
an extraordinary providence and a theocracy are one
and the same thing. " Mr. Warburton pleads for its
" [a theocracy's] continuance till Christ's time, and yet
<c maintains that IT entirely ceased so long before his

» Div. Leg. Book V. § 2. t Ibid § 4. J Ibid. § Ibid*
j| Exam, of Mr. (F's Account, #c. p. 173, 174.

time."

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 15

".time." Thus again to the same purpose: "Or by
" what rule does he form a judgment that WHAT was
" gradually decaying to the Captivity, was entirely
" to cease after their return and full settlement ; and yet
" WAS to continue till Christ's time?'" — Nay, if he
begins to talk of rules, let me ask liiai by what rule he
found out, " that a monarchy and an exact administra-
" tion of justice are one and the same thing?" I sup
pose by the genus gtmralissimum of the schools ; and
might be borrowed, for aught I know, of a certain pre
decessor of his in the Church of Sarum, who, when the
Bishop (to whom he was construing in the Latin Testa
ment) asked him what the word argent um was governed
of, replied, " Of God Almighty, who governs all things.*
But times are changed, and now argentum governs in
its turn. The truth is, our Examiner was thus grievously
misled by the ambiguity of the English word THE GO
VERNMENT; which signifies either the MODE of civil
policy, or the ADMINISTRATION of it. But was this
to be expected in a man who had beer* all his life-long
writing ABOUT government ?

Yet thus he runs along, pushing his owrf blunder be
fore him, from page to page. And still, as if unwilling
to leave it, is at last hardly content to recapitulate his
argument in the following manner: — u What HOW is the
" difference between these TWO GREAT MEN? Dr.
6i Spencer has dated the abatement of the theocracy from
" the end of the time of the Judges : Mr. War bur ton
" allows that under the Judges IT was perfectly equaL
" Dr. Spencer says that the theocracy suffered some
" imminntion under David and Solommi : Mr. War*
ct burton says, when the people demanded a king —
' there was a great abatement in the vigour of THIS
" extraordinary providence. At last Mr" Warburton
f owns a total cessation upon the return of the Jews
"• from captivity ; and to the time of the captivity, a
1 gradual decay. Dr. Spencer says, there was a gradual
" imminution of the theocracy ; but as for a total cessa-
1 tion before Ckrisfs time, he was not IN CONSISTENT
" ENOUGH to maintain that*." What must we do with,
our Doctor under this strange idiosyncrasy ? The general
* Exam, of Mr. JPs Account, $c. p. 177.

case

16 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

case of such kind of writers, when they stumble, is to
run instinctively, as it were, from their own blunders.
But our Doctor delights to dwell upon his, affects to
enjoy them, though but for a moment, returns again
and again to them, as if enamoured of his own image,
in them.

V

V. But now for a master-stroke ; worthy an Answerer
by profession. " It [the extraordinary providence] had
*' ceased (says he) some hundred of years before Christ
" came ; as Mr. Warburton over and over confesses.
" The difficulty then is to shew that the theocracy con-
" tinued, or, ended not till the coming r>/ Christ V

" Perhaps Mr. Warburton will distinguish between-
<( the ceasing of the theocracy^ and the ceasing of the
" extraordinary providence : he may say that the
" theocracy continued till the coming of Ch rist ; the
" extraordinary providence entirely ceased at the full
" settlement after the return of the Jews from their cap-
:" tivity. Let us then grant that the theocracy revived
" after the return from the captivity, as he tells usf.
" And that that dispensation of Providence soon
" ceased after the re-establishment f. We are still as
<: much in the dark as ever ; nor will this distinction help
'• the matter, or free Mr. Warburton from great self-
<f contradiction. For he tells us, one NECESSARV con-
" sequence [of a theocracy] was an EXTRAORDINARY
" PROVIDENCE. For the affairs of a people under a
" theocracy being administered by GOD as KING ; and
" his peculiar and immediate administration in human
" affairs being what we call an extraordinary provi-
" dence, it follows that an extraordinary providence
" must NEEDS be exercised over such a people. My
" meaning is, that if the Jews were really under a
<£ theocracy, they were really under an extraordinary
*' providence. In a word, they must be either both
*' true or both false, but still inseparable^.

" If this be the case, then it is plain that a theocracy
" cannot be without an extraordinary providence. But
<c then Mr. Warburton has shewn, and at large insists
" upon it, that the extraordinary providence ENTIRELY

9 i» Div. Leg. Book V. § 3. t Ibid. % Ibid § 4.

" CEASED

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 17

" CEASED several hundred years before Chris f$
" coming : Nay he says, that lie knows from the course
" and progress of God's economy, that the extraordi-
" nary providence WOULD cease at \\^ full settlement
" of the Jews after their return from the Captivity*.
" He has likewise proved by several arguments, that
" the theocracy continued even to the coming of
" Christ'l". By this means we are left in inextricable
'* difficulties : For first, we have a theocracy subsisting
" many hundred years without an extraordinary pro-
" vidence, viz. from the settlement of the Jews, after
" their return, to the time of Christ : And consequently,
" secondly, a theocracy wherein an extraordinary
" providence KEEDS not be exercised. Thirdly, we
" have a theocracy without a NECESSARY COXSE-
" QU.ENCE of a theocracy, i. e. without an extraordinary
<( providence. And whereas he asserts that the theo-
" cracy and extraordinary providence must be either
" both true or both false, but still inseparable, He
" himself has shewn them to be separable, by shewing
" that the one did in fact subsist without the other for
" so many hundred years as were between the settle-
" ment of the Jews after their return from captivity and
" the coming of Christ^."

The first thing I shall observe is, that the theocracy
and the extraordinary providence are now become
two again, after they had been so long one. But who
can help it ! The Author of The Divine Legation
would needs k.ve them two. However, he will still
shew they are inseparable ; and that, from the Author's
own confession. 1 have here quoted him word for word,
without the omission of a syllable ; that when we see
what he was resolved not to see, we may the better judge
of what he meant, by a mind open to conviction : no
more, I dare say, than a man ic/io had been often con-
victed ; though never perhaps before in so flagrant an
instance. The truth is, I had expressly and particularly
considered and confuted this very objection, in the be
ginning of Sect. V. Book IV. of ^The Divine Legation,
where (on the words — They [the theocracy and extra-

* Book V. § 4. t Iki'l- § 3.

t Exam, of Mr. JFs Account, p. 180— 182.

VOL. XII. C ordinary

iS REMARKS ON SEVERAL

ordinary providence] must be either both trite or both
false, but still inseparable, words which our Examiner
has twice quoted) i say — The thing here asserted has
been misunderstood, as contradicting what I after*
wards observe concerning the gradual decay and total
extinction of the extraordinary providence, while the
theocracy yet existed. But when I say an extra
ordinary providence was one necessary consequence of a
theocracy, / must needs mean that it was so in its
original constitution, and in the established nature
of things : Not that in this, which was matter of
compact, the contravening acts of one party might
not make a separation, for as this extraordinary pro
vidence was, besides, a reward for obedience to the
theocracy, it became subject to a forfeiture by dis
obedience and rebellion, though subjection to the
government still continued. To illustrate this by a
domestic instance : A voice in the supreme council of
the kingdom is the necessary consequence of an Eng
lish Barony ; yet they may be separated by a judicial
sentence ; and actually have been so, as in the case
of the famous Lord Bacon, who was deprived of his
seat in the House of Lords, arid yet held his Barony.
This was the specific punishment of the rebellious
Israelites. They were deprived of the extraordinary
providence ; and yet held subject to the theocracy, as-
appears from the sentence pronounced upon them by
the mouth of the PropJiet Ezekiel : " Ye pollute your-
" selves with your idols even unto this day : and shall
" I be enquired of by you, O House of Israel? As L

' live, saith the Lord God, I will not be enquired of by
" you. And that which cometh into your mind shall
" not be at all, that ye say, we will be as the Heathen,
" as the families of the countries to serve wood and
" stone. As I lire, saith the Lord, with a mighty
" hand, with a stretched-out arm, and w ith fury poured
" out, will I rule over you. And I will bring you out
"' from the people, and will gather you out of the coun-
<% tries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand,

1 and with a stretched-out arm, and with fury
" poured out. And I will bring you into the wilder-
" ness of the people, and there will I plead with you

"face

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 19

" face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in
" ^the wilderness of the Land of Egypt, so will I plead
" with you, saith the Lord. And I will cause you to
" pass under the rod. And I will bring you into the
" BOND OF THE COVENANT." Chap. xx. ver. 31 — 37.
It is here, we see, denounced that the extraordinary
'providence should be withdrawn; or, in Scripture
phrase, that God would not be enquired of by them;
that they should remain in the condition of their
fathers in the wilderness, when the extraordinary pro
vidence, for their signal disobedience, was for some
time suspended. But for all that, though they strove
to disperse themselves amongst the people round about \
and projected in their minds to be as the Heathen, and
the families of the countries to serve wood and stone, yet
they should still be held under the government of a
theocracy : which, when administered without its na
turally attendant blessing of an extraordinary pro
vidence, was, and was justly called, the ROD #W^BOND
OF THE COVENANT*. He is now fairly and openly
convicted. What shall be his punishntent ? That which
hath proved, hitherto, his Reader's ; To write on.

VI. He proceeds, " Mr. JVarburtons second ob-
<f jection against Dr. Spencer is — in his arguments for
" the abolition of the theocracy, instead of at tempting
" to prove it on the great principles of civil policy
^ the only way of determining the question with cer-

1 tainty, lie insists much on the disuse ofurim and
" thummim, 8$c. He brings the despotic power of

' the kings, as another argument, which I think
« proT<es the very contrary. For were these kings
" the viceroys of God, whose power was despotic,
" theirs must necessarily be the same; not so, if
" monarchs in their own right '\\-~~ In his arguments
" for the abolition of the theocracy. Has Dr. Spencer
" any arguments for the abolition of the theocracy be-
" fore the days of Christ f He has no such arguments ;

' nor, I dare say, never thought of such a topic ; be-

" cause he tells us it continued to the last times of their

" policy. He lias indeed a section about the duration

" of the theocracy, in which lie lays down four theses,

t Div. Leg. Book V. § 4. init. f Ibid. § 3.

c 2 " about

20 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" about the gradual declining of the theocracy : And in
" one of them he shews it was not at an end in Saul and
" David's days, because in their time the divine oracle
"' was consulted ; that in Solomon s time, there was a
" disuse of ur'un and thummim, which was a most
" eminent pledge and indication of the divine govern-
" ment : From this he concludes it nearer a?**10"/*?* to
" a disappearing. But since he allows it to continue for
5t a thousand or eleven hundred years- after this, how is
" it POSSIBLE for him to bring arguments for the aholi-
" tion of the theocracy from the ur'un and thummim ?
n He could MEAN only an abatement*." Hear now
my own words, fairly printed together, in The Divine
Legation ; and let the Reader believe it, if he caii: —
This treatise is by no means in the number of those
vn which Spencer raised his reputation* He goes on
& wrong" hypothesis ; he uses weak arguments ; and
he is confused and INCONSISTENT in his assertions,
I. He thinks the theocracy was established hy de
grees and abrogated by degrees. A conceit highly
absurd, as God was legislator. He thinks the first
step to its introduction was the delivery at the Red
seer; and the first step to its abolition, the Israelites
demand of him a king : That it was more impaired
when Saul and David got possession of the throne :
That it approached much 'nearer its end when it be
came hereditarily under Solomon: And yet, .for all
this, that some obscure footsteps of it remained even
to the time of Christ. 2. In his ARGUMENT^/*?;* th?
ABOLITION of the theocracy, instead of employing the
great principles of civ impolicy, the only meows of
determining the question with certainty, he insists
much on the disuse of urim and tliummim, §c. He
brings the despotic power of the Itings as another
argument ; which, 1 thinky proves just the contrary.
For were these kings the viceroys of God, whose
fewer zvas despotic, t heir power must necessarily be
so too : not so., if monarchs, in their own right.
3. Though, as we observed, Spencer, in the second
Section of the fourth Chapter, supposes a gradual decay
§f the theocracy ; and that even some obscure foot-

* Examination of Mr. IP's Account, p. 182, 1S3.

steps

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 121

steps of it remained to the time, o/ Christ; yet in the
following Section he all tht way ARGUES UPON THE

SUPPOSITION OF AN ABSOLUTE AND ZXTIRE ABRO
GATION by the establishment of the kings*. And in
evidence of this last assertion, I quote at the bottom
of the page these following words of Dr. Spencer : — •
" Regi minis hujus MUTATI vel ABB.OGATI causa princi-
" palis — De regiminis hujus ABROGATI eftectu vel eventu
'^brevitcr dissereu-dum est." — Op. Speti. I. p. 241. 243.
This then is the whole of what I said of Dr. Spencer
on this occasion. Where the Header sees, my sole pur
pose was to prove my assertion, that Dr. Spencer argued
weakly and inconsistently. In the first paragraph, I
shew his arguments for a gradual decay are weak. In
the second, that his arguments for an abolition are as
weak. And in the third, that he was inconsistent, talk
ing one while of the continuance of it to the time of
Christ ; and another, of its abrogation under the kings.
Now what says our learned Doctor to all this ? Why
in the first place, he detaches the second paragraph from
the first and third ; though they ail relate to, and con
nect with one another ; and quotes U alone as if in.tire
and independent. With such a liberty the Header
would reasonably think he might have made some shew
at least of an argument : hut, by the good provision of
Nature, his head was made an exact tally to his heart.
I had said that Spencer talked inconsistently in, first,
supposing a gradual decay and continuance, to the time
of Gkri&tj and yet saying that it was abrogated under
the kings. What is his answer? " Since Spencer
" allows it to contiiii-i" for a thousand or eleven hundred
" years after Solamons time, how is it POSSIBLE for him
" to bring arguments for tht- abolition of the theocracy
" from the disuse of 21 rim and thummim ? He COULD
" MEAN only an abatement.1' That is in plain English
— How is it possible , a" man should contradict himself?
Or in still plainer — Your charge of INCONSISTENCY
must be false, otherwise Dr. Spencer would be INCON
SISTENT.

VII. " The third objection of Mr. Warburion (says
' our Doctor) is, that though Spencer in one place
* Div. Leg. Book V. § 3.

c 3 ^ supposes

22 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" supposes a gradual decay of the theocracy, and
" that even some obscure footsteps of it remained to
" the time of Christ, yet in the following Section he
" all the 'way argues upon the supposition of an ab-
" solute and entire abrogation by the establishment
" of the kings*. Here again is Dr. Spencer MUCH
" MISREPRESENTED, from not considering \rhat he
" MEANT by the ABROGATION of God's government.
" Not that the theocracy entirely ceased ; but the go-
" vernment received an ALTERATION and ABATEMENT.
" And therefore he uses more than once the phrase of
<{ Regiminis viutati, in this very Section, and tells us
" that when the Israelites desired a king — hac in re
" Deus ab arte regis politici non recessit. God DID
<£ NOT RECEDE FROM THE ART of a political governor,
<c but consented to their requests in order to avoid a
" greater evil. Where is the absurdity or inconsistency
" of this way of reasoning, unless abrogation is made to
" signify a total abolition ; and duration is to be con-
" s trued cessation f ?

" Spencer (says he} is much misrepresented ; he did
c( not mean by ABROGATION a CEASING, but an ALTER-
" ATION and ABATEMENT." In the Jirst place then,
it seems that when one charges an author with contra
diction in his expressions; if he had a meaning, that
was consistent, he is much misrepresented. A good
commodious principle for the whole class of Answerers !
Secondly^ he says thai abrogation [regimen abrogatum]
does not signify ceasing. Where did he get his Latin f?
Cicero, Livy, and all the Roman writers, lawyers, as
well as philosophers, use it onjy in the sense of dissolu
tion, abolition., and the entire ceasing of an office or com
mand. What then does it signify ? why it signifies an
ALTERATION and ABATEMENT, But now, where did he
get his English ? What! is an alteration of Govern
ment only an abatement of it? The alteration of a
theocracy we understand : But what is the abatement of
it? That indeed I cannot tell. But this I know, that
\ve have here a sufficient proof of what I laid to his charge,

* Div. Leg. Book V. § 3.

f Exam, of Mr. W$ Account, p. 185, 186'.

that

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 23

that he perpetually confounds the mode of government
with the administration of it : alteration being appli
cable to the former; and abatement only to the latter.
Thirdly he says — " and THEREFORE Spencer uses more
" than once the phrase vi rcgiminis MUTATI in this very
*e Section.'' — Therefore! Wherefore i why, because,
by abrogati lie meant only abated ; therefore he uses
mutati, more than once, to explain himself; that is to
say, because, by tetum, I mean />#/•,$; THEREFORE I use
cmne, more than once, to explain my meaning. Well,
if he did not satisfy us before ; he has done it now. But
abrogation must not only signify prorogation, but, what
is more, mutati must signify immutati. Till now we
thought that mutatus had signified changed; a gross
misrepresentation, says he; it signifies unchanged,
though indeed abated or diminished.

Fourthly, he says that Spencer tells us, when the
Israelites desired " a King — hac in re Deus ab arte
" regis poli fid non reccssit ; God did not recede from
" the art of a political governor." This the reader is to
take as a proof of Spencers holding that God did not
give up his office ; and consequently, that there could
be no abrogation ; for we have here to do with a vsry
subtile reasoner. Seriously, the blunder is a delightful
one ! ab arte regis politici non recessit, according to
our critic, signifies, that God did not recede from the
art or exercise of governing; or did not throw up his
office. He has translated the words, we see, verbatim ;
so that it is a little hard when he stuck so close to his
text, he should be thrown so wide from its meaning :
which is, indeed, no more than this, that God con
descended to use the address of political monarchy
who, when they cannot stop or repel a torrent, contrive
to elude it And " where (says he) is the absurdity or
£ inconsistency of this way of reasoning?" Nay, for
that matter, the reasoning is full as good as the transla
tion. But here he should have stopp'd. For so fatal is
his expression, when the tit is upon him, that he cannot
ask quarter for one blunder without committing another —
( unless ABROGATION is made to signify a total ABOLI-
' Tio\r, and DURATION is construed to be CESSATION ?"
I can find (says he) no absurdity or inconsistency in Dr.

c 4 Spencer,

24 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

? without perverting the common signification of
words. This is his argument — Jt'ithout calling dura
tion, cessation — so far is well, tut he jjoes on— and^
abrogation, abolition. And here he sinks again. For
abrogation was abolition, in all nations and languages,
till Dr. fykes first pleaded in ABATEMENT.

In a word, the charge against Spencer was of absur
dity and contradiction in one instance ami<Ut a thousand
excellencies. Dr. Sykes assumes the honour of his de-
feiace. But with what judgment he soon lets us under
stand, when he can find no other part ot that immortal
book to do himself the credit of supporting than his trea
tise of the tJieocracy. Like the ancient advocate of
Cicero, who, while that great man's character was torn
in pieces by his enemies, the flatterers of OB avius, would
needs vindicate him from the wart upon his nose, against
his friends.

Hitherto the controversy was unnatural. Dr. Sykes
became advocate for Spencer against an accusation
brought by the Author of The Divine Legation. But
both soon return again to their proper business : He
to objecting against the extraordinary providence of
heaven ; I, to a defence of this certain and necessary
consequence of a theocracy.

VIII. " Let us now proceed (says the learned
Doctor) to the second point, which relates to the
exercise of an extraordinary providence over particu-
lar persons as well as over the state in general. The
scripture representation of the theocracy, as Mr.
Warburton assures us, tra.s, 1. Over the state in
general : and 2. Over private men in particular*.
I have no doubts about the former of these cases : For
where a law was given by God, and he condescended
to become king of a nation, and a solemn covenant
was entered into by the people, and by God, as their
king, and where blessings were solemnly promised
upon obedience to the law, or curses were denounced
upon disobedience : and this by one who was able to
execute whatever he engaged ; no doubt can be about
the reciprocal obligations, or about God's performing
his part of the obligation, since it is his property not
* Div. Leg. "Book V. § 4.

« tO

'

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 25

" to lie nor deceive. Temporal rewards and punish-
u ments being then the sanction of the Jewish law, these
" must be dispensed by God so as to make the state
" happy and flourishing if they kept the law, or else
" miserable if they disobeyed it. If they observed and
" did all the commandments, which God commanded
" them, God had engaged to make them high above
(i all nations which he had made, in praise, and in
" name, and in honour ; and if enemies rose up against
" them, the Lord would cause them to be smitten.
" On the other hand, if they grew negligent of the law,
" or went aside jrom any of the words commanded
" them — to serve other gods, then the Lord was to
st send cursing, vexation, and rebuke in all THOU
" settest THINE hand unto for to do, until THOU be
" destroyed, and until THOU perish quickly. The
*c blessings and curses were general and national, agree -
" able to the character of a king, and a legal admfnistra-
" tion : Such as related to them as a people ; and not
" to particular persons *.'"

Here, he assures us, " he has no doubts about the
extraordinary providence over the state in general." And
he tells us his reason, — because " the Law was given by
" God, and he condescended to become the king of the
" nation, by a solemn covenant made with the people."
This, I say, is his reason, when taken out of the verbiage
of his expression, Now if it can be proved that this very
reason holds equally strong for an extraordinary provi
dence over particulars, this second point, as he calls it,
will be soon decided between us. In order to this, let
me ask him what those reasons are whereby he infers
that, from God's becoming king of a nation, he must
administer an extraordinary providence over the state in
general, which do not equally conclude for God's ad
ministering it over particulars ? Is not his inference
founded upon this, That where God condescends to
assume a civil character, he condescends to administer it
in a civil manner? Which is done by extending his care
over the whole. If our Doctor says, his inference is not
thus founded ; I must then beg leave to tell him, that he
has no foundation at all to conclude, from God's being
* Exam, of Mr. /F's Account, &c. p. 186, 187.

king,

26 , REMARKS ON SEVERAL

king, that there was an extraordinary providence exerted
over the state in general. If he says, it is thus founded ;
then I infer, upon the same grounds, an extraordinary
providence over particulars. For the justice of the
regal office is equally concerned in extending its care to
particulars as to tlie state in general. It may be asked
then, what hindered our Examiner from seeing so self-
evident a truth ? I reply, an old inveterate blunder, with
which he first set out ; and which yet sticks to him. I
have observed above, what confusion he ran into by not
being able to distinguish between the form of govern
ment and the administration of it. Here again he
makes the same blind work for not seeing the difference
between a legislator and a king. " For where a LAW
" (says he) was given by God, and he condescended
" to become the KING of a nation," &^c. implying that,
in his opinion, the giving a law, and the becoming a
king, was one and the same thing. Hence it was, that
as the legislative power, in the institution of good laws,
extends its providence only over the state in general, he
concluded, that the executive power, in the administra
tion of those laws, does no more. Which brings him to
a conclusion altogether worthy the abilities exerted in the
dilucidation of his premisses — u The blessings and
*£ curses (says he) were general and national, AGUEEA-

" BLE TO THE CHARACTER OF A KtXG AND A LEGAL

" ADMINISTRATION," — What! Is it only agreeable to
the character of a king and a legal administration to take
care of the state in general, and not of particulars ?
So, according to this new system of policy, it is agreeable
to the constitution of England to fit out fleets, to pro
tect the public from insults, and to enact laws to encourage
commerce ; but not to erect courts of equity, or to send
about itinerant judges. What makes our examiner's igno
rance in this matter the more inexcusable is, that I had
pointed out to him this distinction^ in the following pas
sage; the former part of which he has quoted, but dropt
the latter, as if determined that neither himself nor
Reader should be the better for it. My words are these :
It [the extraordinary providence] is represented as ad
ministered, i. Over the state in general. 2. Over
private men in particular. And such a representa
tion

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 27

tion we should expect tojindfrom the nature of the
republic; BECAUSE AS AN EXTRAORDINARY PRO
VIDENCE OVER THE STATE NECESSARILY FOLLOWS

GOD'S BEING THEIR TUTELARY DEITY [in which capa
city he gave them laws]; so AN EXTRAORDINARY PRO
VIDENCE TO PARTICULARS FOLLOWS AS NECESSARILY
FROM HIS BEING THEIR SUPREME MAGISTRATE*. •

Here then I might fairly leave him, having proved my
position on the very same principles, and in the very
same manner, he has proved his own. But let us hear
him out.

IX. He proceeds to tell his Reader what is the ques
tion between us. But we now know enough of him to
be upon our guard whenever he begins to tell his story.
And, in truth, it is no more than needs. For here he
tops his part. " The question then (says he) that now
" is to be considered is, whether an extraordinary pro-
' vidence was administered to particulars in such a
' manner, that no transgressor escaped punishment ,
" nor any observer of the law missed his reward.
' This was the state of the Jews under an equal pro-
fr vidence, as Mr. JVarburton tells usf, and by this
" means human affairs might be kept in good order
1 without the doctrine of a future state of rewards
1 and punishments. That God did bless particular
1 persons amongst the Jews, as well as now he does in
' all nations, is certain ; but that he so dispensed his
' favours, as that no observer of the law missed his
6 reward, nor did any transgressor escape punish*
' merit, is far from being clear. The nation, considered
* as a nation, had this peculiar to it, that when they did
' evil in the sight of the Lord, they were delivered into
' the hands of their enemies. When they repented, and
' put away the strange gods from amongst them, and
1 served the Lord, they were delivered. Instances of
r this are frequent in the book of Judges, and in the
' history of the Kings of Israel. But if we descend to
1 an extraordinary providence over particulars, even in
" those times, I do not remember what will amount to
« proof +."

* Div. Leg. Book V. § 4. f Ibid. § 5.

J Exam, of Mr, JFs Account, &c. p. 18/~, 188.

He

28 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

He says the question between us is, " Whether an
" extraordinary providence to particulars was adinini-
" stered IN SUCH A MAXNEU, that no transgressor
Cc escaped punishment, nor any observer of the Law
" missed his reward." On the contrary, he himself
owns, in the very preceding paragraph, that the question
between us is simply this, whether the extraordinary
providence was only over the state in general ; or whether
it extended to particulars* And on that occasion fairly
quotes the passage where I stated the nature of this
extraordinary providence. Nay, in the very paragraph
just quoted from him, he owns, in conclusion, that the
question is about an extraordinary providence over par
ticulars ; without confining or extending it to this or that
mode ; for he denies the very thing itself. What then
ara we to suppose was his drift in changing the state of
the question ; and telling us now, that it is, " whether
" the extraordinary providence was administered ix
" SUCH A MANX EH that 7io transgressor escaped
" punishment, nor any observer of the law missed his
4C reward?" What think you? But to introduce a
commodious fallacy under an ambiguous expression ; that
should be always at hand to answer his occasions?
Which, we shall find as we go along, tliis always is.
And indeed the cautious Reader (and I would advise no
other to have to do with him) will suspect no less, when
he observes that the words [no transgressor escaped
punishment, nor any observer of the law missed his
reward] quoted from me, are not to be found in that
place where I stated the nature of the extraordinary
providence; but in another. Where I speak of the
consequences of it, in these words: — llre liave shewn at
large in the first volume, that under a common or un
equal providence, civil government could not be sup
ported without a religion, teaching a future state of
reward and / iniishmcnt. And it is the great purpose
of this work to prove, that the Mosaic religion want
ing that doctrine, the Jews must necessarily have
enjoyed an equal providence under which Holy Scrip
ture represents them to hare lived. AXD THEX, KQ
transgressor escaping punishment, nor any observer
of the law missing his reward, human affairs must be
6 kept

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS, 29

kept in good order without the doctrine of a future
state*. — What now has this Answerer by profession
done ? He has taken the words [no transgressor
escaping punishment, nor any observer of the lazy
missing his reward} from their natural place, misrepre
sented their purpose, and given them to the Reader ^3
my DEFINITION of an extraordinary providence to par
ticulars ; and, not content with that, has- put this false
and sophistical sense upon them, THAT NO ONE SINGLE
PERSON, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ever escaped punish
ment, or ever missed his reward. And in this mertshmis
sense he, by the worst prevarication, repeats, and applies
them, on every following occasion, as the sole answer to
all my reasonings on the subject of an extraordinary pro
vidence. To prepare the Reader, therefore, for a proper
reception of all the miserable chicane that arises out of
this his nPflTON TEYAOI, I shall here shew, that the
words [no transgressor escaping punishment, nor any
observer of the law missing his reward] could not
mean by any rules of just construction,, that every single
person, without exception, was thus punished and re
warded ; but only that this very extraordinary providence
over particulars, was so exactly administered, as that
no one could hope to escape it, or fear to be forgotten
by it.

First, then, Let it be observed, that the words are no
absolute assertion; but a consequence of something as
serted. — AND THEN no transgressor escaping, Sfc.
which illative words the honest examiner omitted. Now
what had been asserted was simply this, that the extraor
dinary providence over the Jews was, in Scripture, re
presented as administered over particulars : but that this
very administration would of necessity be attended with
some inequalities!. Must not then the consequence I
draw from these premisses be as restrained as the pre
misses themselves? Secondly, I said, that God had
promised an equal providence to particulars; but that he
hud declared at the same time how it should be admi
nistered, viz* in such a manner as would occasion some
few exceptions. If therefore Dr. Sykes would not allow
me, he ought to have allowed God; at least, the right of
* Div, Leg. Ik-ok V. | 5. -\ Ibid, § 4.

explaining

30 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

explaining himself. Thirdly, had the words been abso
lute, as they then might have admitted of two senses, did
not common ingenuity require, tiiat I should be under
stood in that which was easiest to prove, when it was
equally to my purpose ? Which is an extraordinary pro
vidence over particulars in the manner here explained.
But there \Vas still more than this to lead an ingenuous
man into my meaning; which was, that he might ob
serve, that I used, throughout my whole Discourse of
the Jewish economy, the words extraordinary pro
vidence and equal providencey as equivalent. By which
he would understand that I all along admitted of ex
ceptions. Fourthly, If such rare cases of exception
destroyed an equal providence to particulars (which
providence I hold), it would destroy with it the equal
providence to the state (which Dr. Sykes pretends to
hold). But if not for the sake of truth in opinion, yet
for fair-dealing in practice, Dr. Sykes should have inter
preted my words not absolutely, but with exceptions.
For thus stood the case. He quoted two positions from
the Divine Legation: 1. That there was an extra
ordinary providence over the state in general : 2. Over
private men in particular. He grants the first; and
denies the second. But is not the extent of that pro
vidence understood to be, in both cases, the same ? Now
in that over the state., he understands it to have been
with exceptions, as appears from his own mention of the
cases of Achan and of David. Ought he not then, by
all the rules of honest reason, to have understood the
proposition-denied, in the same sense he understands the
proposition-granted ? If in the administration over the
state in general, there were some few exceptions, why
not in that over private men in particular?

But if now the candid reader will ask me why I em
ployed expressions that, w^hen divorced from the context,
might be abused by a caviller to a perverse meaning, I
will tell him : I used them in imitation of the language of
the apostle, who says that, under the Jewish economy,
EVERY transgression and disobedience received a just
recompence of reward*. And if he be to be understood
exceptions, why may not I ?
* Heb. ii. 2.

Having

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 31

Having now exposed, as it deserves, this master fallacy,
the rabble of sophisms, which follow it, and pretend to
make their fortune by it, are easily dispersed. But before
we come to that, we have something further to say to the
paragraph in hand. We observed, that, in concluding it,
he returns again to the true state of the question. These
are his words — " But if we descend to an extraordinary
" providence over particulars even in those times [the
" Judges and Kings of Israel], I do not remember what
" will amount to proof." To assist his bad memory, or
long absence from his Bible, I shall quote again from The
Divine Legation, the following passages. /// the dedi
cation of the first temple, Solomon addresses hi*
prayer to God, that the covenant between him and the
people might remain for everjirm and inviolate, and
the old economy be still continued. And after having
enumerated divers parts of it, he proceeds in these
words : When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain,
because they have sinned against thee ; yet if they pray
towards this place, and con less thy name, and turn from
their sin, when thou dost afflict them : then hear thoii
from heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of
thy people Israel, when thou ha^t taught them die good
way, wherein they should walk ; and send rain upon" the
land, which thou hast given unto thy people lor an inheri
tance. If there be dearth in the land, if there be pesti
lence, if there be blasting or mildew, locust or cater
pillars ; if their enemies besiege them in the cities of their
land ; whatsoever sore or whatsoever sickness there be ^
Then what prayer or what supplication shall be made of
any man, or of all thy people Israel, when every one
shall know his own sore, and his own grief > and shall
spread forth his hands in this house ; then hear thou from
heaven and forgive, arad render unto every man accord
ing unto all his ways, whose heart thou knowest*. The,
Psalmist bears his testimony to the same economy:
I have been young (says he) and now am old : yet have I
not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their
bread f. GOD himself declares it by the prophet
Isaiah : Say ye to the righteous that it shall be well with
him : for they shall eaUhe fruit of their doings, ' Wo

* 2 Cbron. vi. 28. et seq. f Psal. *xxvii. 25.

unto

32 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

unto the wicked, it shall be ill with him : for the reward
of his hands shall be given him*. And again : He that
walketh righteously and speakcth uprightly, etc, he shall
dwell on high : his place of defence shall be the muni
tions of rocks, bread shall be given him, his waters shall
be suref. And we learn from a parabolical command
in Ezekiel how exactly these promises were fulfilled:
And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the
city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark
upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and that cry for
all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
And to others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him
through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare,
neither have ye pity. Slay utterly old and young, both
maids and little children, and women ; but come not near
any man upon whom is the Mark ; and begin at my
sanctuary;};, <§r. But GOD, by the prophet Amos,
describes this administration of providence in the
fullest manner : Also I have wlthholden the rain from
you, when there was yet three months to the harvest, and
I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to
rain upon another city : one piece was rained upon, and
the piece whereupon it rained not, withered. So two or
ttyree cities wandered into one city to drink water; but
they were not satisfied : yet have ye not returned unto me,
saith the Lord. 1 have smitten you with blasting and
mildew, <§'C.§. And a$ain : Lo I will command, and
I will sift the house of hrad amongst all nations, like as
corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall
upon the earth ||. Yet all this he had overlooked as not
amounting, I suppose, to proof.

X. At last he owns I had allowed, " that the sacred
" writings themselves freely speak of the inequality
" of providence to particulars in such a manner as
" men living under a common providence are accus-
" tomedto speak^ Which shews it was impossible I
should mean the proposition of No transgressor ever

* Chap. iii. 10, 11.

•fr Chap, xxxiii. 15, iff. J Chap. ix. 4, 5, 6.

§ Chap. iv. 7~ll. i| Chap. ix. 9-

51 Exam, of Mr. fFs Account, &c. p. 138, See also Div. Leg.
Book V. § 4.

escaping

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 33

escaping punishment, Sec. in the sense he has put upon
it. But this i? so tar from shaming hiai lor his prevari
cation, that, alter having given examples to confirm my
observation of the Sacred Writers speaking of the in
equalities of providence, he goes on thus: " This ob-
" jection taken from the complaints made by the Sacred
" Writers was so full and strong, that, though Mr. War-
" burton promises to prove hereafter that an equal
" providence was actually administered, yet, for his
" Reader's present satisfaction, he will shew, that these
" representations of inequality are very consistent
" with that before given of the equality of 'providence.
" I will examine with as much brevity as i can, what he
" has said ; and leave you to judge whether he has said
" enough to give his Reader present satisfaction *."

The iirst remark I shall make on this passage is, that
it represents me forced to make an acknowledgment, not
out of any regard to truth, but through necessity. —
Secondly, where he says that I promise to prove here
after that an equal providence was actually admini-
stered, he mistakes, as usual, my sense, and supposes I
meant, in the third volume of The Divine Legation.
Whereas all, who understand that book, know I meant, in
the latter part of the second, then in my hands. And
even he himself may now see as much by the short view
I have given of it, in the first part of these Remarks :
where speaking of this matter, I express myself in the
following terms : — Here the reader should o '
my argument does not require me to prove more than
that an extraordinary providence is REPRESENTED in
Scripture to be administered : the prcof of its REAL
administration it is the purpose of this /Fork to give
through the great MEDIUM cf my theses, — The
omission of the Doctrine of a future State of Rewards
and Punishments. — If therefore I clearly shew
from the whole Jewish history that the matter is thus
represented, the inference from my medium, which
proves the representation true, answers all objections,
both as to our inadequate conception of the manner
Jww such a providence could be administered: and as
to certain passages in Holy Scripture that seem to
* Exam. &c. p. 3.91.

VOL, XII. D clush

34 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

clash with this its GENERAL REPRESENTATION. Ant
yet both these objections (to leave no shadow of doubt
unsatisfied) are considered likewise. These consider
ations our Examiner has now attacked. Let us see with,
what success.

XI. He tells the reader, my first consideration is,
" That when the Sacred Writers speak of the in-
" equality of providence, and the unjit distribution
" of things, they, sometimes mean that state of it
" amongst their Pagan neighbours, and not in Judea,
" as particularly in th%Book of Psalms and Eccle-
" sia&tes*." To this he replies,— " dsaph, or who*
** ever was the author of the psalm before cited, com-
" plains heavily at the prosperity of the wicked, These'
" wicked meirwere, it seems, not Jews, but his Pagan
*' neighbours!," <ST- Would not any one, now, believe,
that this Psalm before cited was one I had cited, to
prove that, in the Booh of Psalms the writers of it
sometimes mean that state of providence amongst
their Pagan neighbours f So far from it, I had cited it
to the very contrary purpose ; as a proof of the ex
traordinary providence to the Jewish people, who are
there all along spoken of. But what 'then ? He had
cited it a page or two before : and his trade required him.
to cite it again. Or did he, indeed, imagine, that when I
said, The writers of the Book of Psalms sometimes
spoke of that state of providence amongst their Pagan;
neighbours, I meant in every psalm ? It is- hard to tell.
I have sometimes catched him at a worse inference..
However, as he loves to be encouraged, I shall say na
more to him of the Psalms, till he has cited, and of course;
misinterpreted, every one of them L and then he may hear
further from me.

In the other case of Ecclesiastes (thanks however te*
the nature of the book) he has argued fairer at least
" Much less still (says he) is the reflection of the
" preacher in Ecclesiastes designed to relate to his-
" Pagan neighbours. It is an universal observation,,
" that the work of God is inscrutable even to a wise
'* man. On which account the author proposes to

* Dw. Leg. Book V. § 4.

f Exara, oi'MivJF'* Accoimt, p. 19V

« clar®,

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 35

" clare, that no man could judge of cither love or hatred
" by what was before him, since all things come alike
" to all, there is one event to the righteous and to
" the wicked, &c. This was an &n\ among all things
" done under the sun, that there is one event to all.
" Has he made any exception for Israel ? No : but
" he maintains, that the race is not to the swift ; nor
" the battle to the strong', neither yet bread to the
" wise ; nor yet riches to the men of understanding ;
" nor yet favour to men of skill:, but time and
" chance happeneth to them all. Eccles.ix. n. Could
" a wise man, under an extraordinary providence
<( himself, talk in this manner, thus universally, and make
" no exceptions for his own nation ? Did he not see a
" difference betwixt the people of Israel, and all other
" people ? Or if there was such a difference as Mr.
" Warburton contends for, could he fail taking notice
" of it? Would not his omi people be led into wrong
" notions by such universal assertions ? I cannot there-
" fore but think, that this solution given by Mr. War-
" burton is not only not sufficiently well grounded, but
" that it has no foundation at all, viz. that the Psalmist \
" and the Son of David, spoke of their Pagan neigh-
*' boars, and not of the Jews, when they expressed
" themselves so strongly about the prosperity of the
" wicked and the misfortune of good men*." I now
begin to think, he had some reason to lament, that a
nght good critical and grammatical comment has
never yet been wrote upon the Bible^. Till then I
shall beg leave to supply his wants with a short account
of the general plan and purpose of this famous book. It
is a philosophical inquiry into the chief good or summurn
bonum, so universal a subject of dispute amongst the
ancient Sages ; and managed much in their way ; i. e.
chiefly employed in detecting the false notions of happi
ness. And that it was not unusual for Solomon to per
sonate the garb and manners of the Gentile Sages w?e
understand by Josephus, in the story he tells of Solomon
sending riddles to the king of Tyre as trials of the abili
ties of his wise men ; whose sagacity, at that time, lay

* Examination of Mr. JF's Account, p. 195, l^G.

% Pancip. and Coime*. of Nat. and Rev, Rejig, p, 217.

D 2 chiefly,

36 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

chiefly, as we find by Herodotus, towards such kind of
decyphering.

This alone is sufficient to shew us, that the sacred
Writer addressed himself to his countrymen, not so much
under the idea of a selected nation, as to part of the pos
terity of Adam and of the human race at large. Other
wise, to what purpose was this philosophical inquiry?
For as the chosen people, their law expressly pointed out,
and led them directly to, the supreme good : which,
indeed, the" sacred Writer, at last ends with: and lie
could do no other, both as he was a Jew, and as he ad
dressed himself to his countrymen, neither of whom could
long divest themselves of their peculiar character. Let
its hear the conclusion of the whole matter (says he);
fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the
whole duty of man*.

But to be a little more particular. The BOOK OPENS
in this manner: — Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
What profit has a man of all his labour which he
taketh under the sun?-' All things are full of
labour. Man cannot utter it : the eye is not satis
fied with seeing^ nor the car filed with hearing. The
thing that hath been is that which shall be — ami
there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any
thin* whereof it may be said, See this is new ?•-
There is no remembrance of former things-, neither
shall there be any remembrance of things that are
to come, with those that shall come aftcr'\ ? The
propositions are here all general ; and plainly relative to
mankind at large : for some of them are not true with
respect to the chosen nation ; such as the assertion that
nothing was new under' the sun\ <§T. But the following
words more expressly declare his meaning to be general*
And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wis-
doniy concerning all things that are done under
heaven — I have seen all the works that are done un
der the sun $. In the SECOND chapter he still more
professedly assumes the character of an ancient Sage;
and inquires whether happiness be to be found in mirth
i and jollity ; in magnificence ; in luxury ; in wealth ; in
power, or in wisdom. All, but the last, he gives up*
* Chap. xii. 13. f Clap, i. 2—12. J Ibid, 13, 14.

This

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 37

This indeed had some pretensions to it : for he found
wisdom exceeded folly as far as light exceedeth dark
ness *. Yet, when he observed that the same thing
happened both to the fool and the rmef ; he. rejected
this likewise with the rest.: and, now floundering deeper
and deeper in his philosophical inquiries, he sinks at last
into gross Epicurism, There is nothing better for a
man, than that he should eat and. drink + , $c. But
then adding, and of such good who can enjoy more than
I\ ? This recalls his real character, and affords him an
opportunity of ending the inquiry in a decent manner,
For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight ,
wisdom, and knowledge, and joy : but to tlie sinner he
giveth travail \\, 8$c. Which was done with "the finest
address; and prevented what he had said just before, in
his personated character, from giving scandal, or being
misunderstood. Let me observe too, that there is no
way of reconciling this last verse with the 14th, where
lie declares, that one event happeneth to all, than by
supposing, he there spoke of the state of mankind in
general ; and here of the Jewish nation in particular.
On this principle, several other contradictory passages,
to the same purpose, must needs be interpreted. In the
THIRD chapter, having resumed his personated character,
he seeks for happiness, and finds nothing but vanity, in
the natural constitution of things. In the FOURTH chap
ter, he seeks it, and finds the same, in the moral consti
tution of things. And here he, all along, speaks of
mankind in general / have se,en the travail which
God hath given to the sons of men, to be exercised in
it. He hath made every thing beautiful in his time :
also he hath set the world in their heart ^. — Nay,
there are some places where his thought must be confined
to other .countries, as where he says (chap. vi. ver. 2.)
A man to whom God hath given riclies, wealth, and
honour — yet God giveth him not power to eat there
of, but a STRANGER catcth it. This could not happen
•under Solomon in the Land of Judtea, when inheritances
never went out of the twelve tribes. Again, And more
over, I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that

* Chap. ii. 13. t Ver. 14. J Ver. 24.

§ Ver. 25.o || Ver. 26. f Chap. iii. 10, 11.

P 3 wickedness

38 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

wickedness was there-, and the place of righteousness,
that iniquity was there* . Are we to think that Solo
mon was afraid of saying, this was in Jud&a, which he
governed absolutely ; and so disguised his expression to
rnake'us believe he meant it of the world at large? Or
could the civil administration of the land, which he gOr
verned with so much wisdom and equity, be in the mise
rable condition here described ? The fourth chapter
begins — So I returned, and considered all the oppres
sions that are done under the sun. — Returned! from
whence ? From a contemplation of the natural state of
things, (spoken of in the preceding chapter) to the moral,
every where over the whole face of the habitable globe ; —
all the oppressions that are done under the sun. But
the 1 3th and 14th verses certainly allude to some fact out
of Judaea. Better is a poor and wise child, than an
old and foolish King : for oat of prison he cometh
to reign ; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom
becometh poor. In the same manner we must interpret
the 14th and 15th verses of the ixth chapter; and the
5th, 6th, and 7th verses of the xth chapter. From hence,
that is, from the end of the fourth chapter, to the con
clusion of the book, the sacred Writer employs himself in
miscellaneous reflections illustrating and supporting his
main question : partly abstracted, in his assumed charac
ter of Sage; and partly practical and didactic., in his
character of Preacher : till he comes to the conclusion
of his inquiry after happiness, which he places in God :
Remember thy Creator, fyc. And in this part, agree
able to the character in which he speaks, he sometimes
asserts an equal providence, and sometimes an unequal.
As where he says, in behalf of the first — It is good that
tJtou shouldst take hold of this-, yea, also from this

.withdraw not thine hand : for he thatfeareth God,
shall COME FORTH of them all*\ . Whoso keepeth the
Commandments shall FEEL NO EVIL THING J. But
it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he
PROLONG HIS DAYS, which are as a shadow] because he

feareth not before God^ . On the contrary he says, in
Jhe very following verse: There is a vanity which is

f Ver. 16. •$ Chap, vii. 18, J Chap. viii. 5. § Ver. 13.

don*

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 39

upon the earth, that there be just men unto whom
it happenetk according to the work of the wicked :
Again, there be wicked men to whom it happeneth ac
cording to the work of the righteous*. This is
worthy our observation. When, in the preceding verse,
.lie had asserted an equal providence; and by the words,
prolong his days, marked it to be such a one as we are
told in the law, was administered over the land of Judaea \
when he comes to speak in this verse of an unequal
providence, he as plainly intimates that he meant it in the
world at large. t>y the introductory expression o£ There
is a vanity which is done upon the earth.

But, how the Book of Ecclesiattes came to be written ;
and how it came to be -cast into this form ; though such
an inquiry might tend to illustrate and support our inter
pretation ; I shall not at present, nor, perhaps, ever here
after, think fit to inform our Ex&minej\ What has been
already said, is more than sufficient to justify my assei^
tion, That when the Writer of Eeclesiastes speaks of
the inequality of providence, he means that state of it
amongst his Pagan neighbours : — The argument stands
thus : There are several places in the Book of Ecclesi*
astes where an equal providence it asserted; several,
•where an unequal. These can be only reconciled by
supposing, that, in the first ease, he speaJcs of it as ad^
ministered in the Land of Judcea ; in the second, as in
the world at large. Tlie supposition is justified in this
manner : i . by shewing, that the very expression, in both
-cases, supports this -distinction: 2. that the author some*
times speaks in the personated character of a Sage or
philosophical inquirer after truth ; in which, he transports
himself into die world at large : sometimes, in his own
•character of a Preacher, where he confines himself to the
Jewish people. — But to go on now with our Examiner.

XII. ff Mr. Warburton (says he) has given us a
" second solution of this difficulty, no better, I think,
c than the former. We sometimes find particular men
' complaining of inequalities in events, which were
( indeed the effects of a most equal providence : such
* as the punishment of posterity for the crimes of

* Ver. 14.

D 4 " their

40 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" their forefathers, and of subjects for their kings,
" These are indeed remarkable instances of an extra-
" ordinary equal providence, where NO TRANSGRESSOR
" COULD ESCAPE PUNISHMENT, NOR GOOD MAN
" ESCAPE REWARD, to tell us of transgressing forefathers
" escaping, and their INNOCENT CHILDREN BEING
" PUNISHED; of wicked kings under no misfortunes,
" and innocent subjects suffering en thrir account* !n
And thus he goes on, repeating his -apvrw if-'^eJc? for
eight pages together. For now this wi/.>tefy of iniquity
begins to work. HR must bs content, therefore,, to be
reminded (for the fust time) that he here studs charged
with putting a PAL^E sense upon, no transgressor
escaping punishment, fyc. by which alone his argument
is supported. And we shall have irequtnt occasion, as
T\e go along, to repeat his crime, and set this black mark
upon him. But so gross a misrepresentation does not
stand single. It is accompanied with another as gross,
which, however, seems rather to he the fault of his cmder-
standing. He expressly represents -me as affirming, that,
by the law of God, INNOCENT CHILDREN WERE PU-
KISIIED FOR TIIEIR GUILTY PARENTS; in a manner
that cannot he reconciled to justice, or goodness, or
impartiality in an extraordinary pror'ulenct'\\ An
atrocious ace isation ! and without a possibility of proof.
For in (his d-jcourse, which our author refers to, and
understands not, I had shewn, 1. That where the pos
terity of guilty parents were deprived of any of their
natural unconditional rights for their parents' crimes,
there, the posterity were not innocent. Which, I ob
served, mkht be understood, from the law itself; where,
although God allowed capital punishment to be in
flicted j or Lese Majesty on the person of the offender,
by the delegated administration of the, Law ; yet con
cerning his family or posterity he reserved the inqui
sition to himself; and expressly forbad the magistrate
to meddle with it 4n the common course oj justice J.
For why was the magistrate forbid to imitate -Xjrod's
method of punishing, but because no power less than
omniscient could, in all cases, keep clear of injustice in

* Exam, of Mr. JF's Account, p. J£$, 197. | Ibid, p. 197.
| Div. Leg. Book V. § 5.

such

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 41

such a perquisition? But I observed further, that God
had expressly declared why he reserved this method of
punishment to himself, in the place where he informs us,
how, or in what manner, he was pleased to administer it.
Your iniquities (says he) and the iniquities of your
fathers together*, §c. 2. 1 had shewn, that where
"an innocent posterity suffered for the crimes of suilty
parents, it was only in the deprivation of their civil con^
ditionai rights. For the Israelites, as Scripture informs
us, were supported in Judcea by an extraordinary ad
ministration of providence; the consequence of which
were great temporal blessings given them on condition;
and to which they had no natural claim. Nothing there
fore could be more equitable than, on the violation of
that condition, to withdraw those extraordinary blessings
from a father thns offending. To confirm which, I
shewed, that it exactly corresponded with the practice of
all states, in attaint of blood and confiscation f . And
now, was it possible for the most arrant Answerer by
profession, had he understood what was said, to charge
me with holding, that by the law of God, innocent
children were punished for their guilty parents in a
manner that cannot be reconciled to justice, or good-
ness, or impartiality in an extraordinary providence ?
Not but we must think that he had read that dissertation.
For there is scarce any part of it which, under this head,
}ie does not quota: but in so absurd a manner, and to so
absurd purposes, as evidently shew, that he understood
not what he read. Of which take the following instances :

To prove that the importance of the doctrine or a
future state was well understood by Moses, I shew,
that the law qf punishing the iniquities of the fathers
upon the children, was a provision opposed to the in
convenient consequences of its omission. For that the
violence of irregular passions would make some sort of
men, of stronger complexions, superior to all the fear of
personal temporal evil. To lay hold therefore of these,
and to gain a due ascendant over the most determined,
the punishments, in this institution, are extended to the
posterity of wicked men ; which the instinctive fondness
of parents for their offspring would make terrible, even to
* Isa. Jxv. 7. | Div. Leg. Book V. § 5.

those

42 REMARKS Ott SEVERAL

those who had hardened themselves into an insensibility
of personal punishment*. Now this Dr. Sykes ex
pressly represents as said to " get rid of this difficulty*
" vis. How innocent children being made to suffer for
*' their sinning parents can be consistent with the law of
*.c an equal providence f." This is scarce indeed to be
believed, though we see his end in his prevarication.
For. now the answer comes out easy in a mere denial —
** This is not consistent with the law of an equal pro-
" vidence." Whereas had he told the reader truth con
cerning my purpose, in the observation, then, in order to
answer it, he must have proved, that the punishment on
the posterity of a wicked man did not lay hold of his in
stinctive passions; which, I suppose, would have not
been so easy. But indeed I am always ready to suspect,
that I attribute more to design in this Writer, than I
ought. And, in his repetition of this false representation,
there is something so natural, that I am almost ready to
^acquit him of all practice. — " It is certain (says he)
" the instinctive fondness of parents will restrain, §c. —
" But this is NOT THE CASE in hand. The PREVIOUS
*' SUPPOSITION is, that no transgressor is to escape
" punishment, &c. The QUESTION THEN is, upon
" this supposition, how a guilty parent's crimes can be.
" visited upon his innocent children £." For is it
possible he should knowingly venture the being detected
in so gross a misrepresentation by any one who will but
turn to Book V. § 5. of The Divine Legation ?

His next observation collects his scattered absurdities
together ; and so frees us at once from the trouble of any
further quotations from him on this head.

He says, the Author of The Divine Legation goes on
and observes " that this punishment [of visiting tHfe
" iniquities of fathers upon children] was only to supply
" the want of a future state. But how will this
*' extraordinary economy SUPPLY this want? The
" children at present suffer for their parents' crimes ; and
" are supposed to be punished when they have no guilt.
" Is not this a plain act of HARDSHIP? And if there
" be no future state or compensation made, the hardship

» Div. Leg. Book V. § 5.

-fr ii'i. am. of Mr. Ws Account, &c. p, 1$9. J Ibid. p. 201.

4 " don«

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 43

" done must continue for ever a hardship on the un-
•" happy sufferer *." i. The question is, whether this
law of punishing, was a SUPPLY to the want of a future
state? If it laid hold of the passions, as he owns above
it did, it certainly was a SUPPLY, However, he will here
prove it was none. And how ? Because it was a HARD
SHIP. 2. He supposes that when children were punished,
in the proper sense of the word, they were innocent,
which is absolutely false, for then they were always guilty.
When the innocent were affected by their parents' crimes,
it was by the deprivation of benefits, in their nature for*
feitable. 3. He supposes, that if Moses taught no future
$tate, it would then follow that there was none. Which
puts me in mind of the same sort of confutation which
the jirst volume of The Divine Legation underwent.
Where speaking of the true foundation of morality, I ob
served, (to the discredit of Atheism, which I thought
destructive of society) that an Atheist could not, on his
principles, find any grounds of moral obligation. Hence
it was inferred that, on my reasoning, an Atheist, who
transgressed the rule of right, would not deserve punish
ment. A conclusion founded in the same logic with our
learned Doctor's, that, if an Atheist thought there were
no God, then there was none. Otherwise, how the right
consequences drawn by him, from premisses which he
never could have embraced but through a criminal negli
gence or partiality, should be faultless, I then had not,
nor yet have penetration enough to discover f.

But he ends his false reasoning on this subject, as all
false reasoning must end, when drawn out to that com
fortable length with which Dr. Sykes always regales his
reader, in complete unintcllectual absurdity. " Mr.
" JFarburton (says he) had before him the practice of

* Exam, of Mr. Ws Account, &c. p. 202, 203.

f I would not here be supposed to hint at a very ingenious
Writer, who geems to have fallen into this mistake, in a Discourse
printed in; the Works of the Learned for August 1743, intitled,
Remarks upon some Writers concerning the Foundation of Moral
Obligation, A Writer by no means to be ranked with the riffraff
now upon my hands. The Discourse here mentioned being one of
the most polite, candid, rational performances, I ever saw on that
side the question ; and enlightened with a spirit of sublime and
finaffeded pietj, superior to all reasoning.

" modern

44 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" modern states in attaint of. blood and confiscation?
" and he allows this to be done with the highest equity :
" and says, thus it must needs be under a theocracy;
" God supported the Israelites in Judea by an extra-
" ordinary administration of his providence : the con-
*l sequence of which was great temporal blessings given
41 them on condition and to which they had no natural
" claim. Could any thing be more equitable^ than on
" the violation of that condition to withdraw those
" extraordinary blessings from the children of a father
*' thus offending* ?

" It is true, that the Jews had no natural claim .to
" great temporal blessings. But then they had a claim
^ to them from express promise; which is as good a
" claim in the present case as any natural claim whatever.
fc They had this claim indeed on condition ; a condition
41 of certain behaviour, which if they complied with, no
" observer w^as to miss his reward. The case is put
46 of an innocent child suffering on account of a guilty
" father. The innocent child has a right to temporal
" blessings by virtue of express promise; and no sin of
" the father can deprive him of these blessings without a
" violation of the covenant : for if it would, an observer
" of the law would miss his reward. It wrould there-
*' fore in the present case be so far from equitable to
•" withdraw those extraordinary blessings from the
" children of an offending parent, that it would be a
" direct violation of contract and engagement : it would
4i be a breach of promise in God, and consequently a
" thing impossible in itselff." What is it that our
Answerer drives at? He grants the Jews had no
natural claim to great temporal blessings; he grants,
these were given on condition of obedience ; he grants,
that a punishment was denounced on posterity for the
crimes of their parents. These three things he grants.
Yet he affirms " that it would be so far from equitable
" to withdraw those extraordinary blessings from the
" children of an offending parent, that it would be a
" direct violation of contract and engagement." And
does not this great Legist see, that a conditional grant,

* Div. Leg. Book V. § 5.

t Exam, of Mr. [Ps Account, #c. p. 20a, 204.

when

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 45

•when conveyed through parents to children, if forfeited by
the parent, does riot descend, of right, to the children ;
and consequently, may at any time, with the utmost jus
tice, be resumed ? For when a thing is given to parents
and their posterity, on condition of obedience ; and, at
the same time, 'the punishment of offending parents
threatened on their posterity, is not the parents' good be
haviour part of the condition ? What is it then, that
could thus confound the understanding of our learned
Doctor? His czcn sophistical prevarications. Which
generally reward their inventors as the Devil does a
witch, alter having served them in many juggling tricks,
at length draws them into a rope, and there leaves 'them.
I had said that an innocent posterity were sometimes
punished for the crimes of their wicked fathers. I
had likewise said that no transgressor escaped punish
ment ', nor any observer of the law missed his reward.
Now, instead of interpreting the first proposition as I
explained it, in the very place where I used it, to signify
no more than that an innocent posterity were deprived of
civil blessings which their fathers had legally forfeited ;
he represents me as saying, that by the law of God,
" innocent children were punished for their guilty parents
" in a manner that cannot be reconciled to justice, or
" goodness, or impartiality in an extraordinary provi-
" dence *." Instead of interpreting the second propo
sition in the sense of the apostle, from whence I bor
rowed the expression, who says that under .the Jewish
economy every transgression and disobedience received
a just recompence and reward, he will have it to be my
meaning that no one single person, without exception,
ever escaped punishment, or ever missed his reward :
though, as I have shewn, it contradicts all logical rules
of interpretation. And now see what comes of it. By
applying these prevarications to the place in question, he
argues in such a manner as if he never had the least con
ception of what others call the common principles of
•iense or justice.

XIII. My " third solution of the difficulty (he tells
" us) stands thus, admitting the reality of an equal

* An Exam, of Mr. Ws Account, p. 197.

" providence

46 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" providence to particulars, in the Hebrew State,
" administration of it must needs be attended with
" such circumstances as sometimes to occasion those
" observations of inequality, i. e. in plain terms, an
" equal providence MUST NEEDS be unequal. Is not
" this a plain acknowledgment, that an equal providence
" cannot be administered at all, since it needs must be
<c attended with such circumstances as must appear un-
" equal*?" I say, an equal providence must needs be
at tended with such circumstances as to occasion men's
observations of inequality. This proposition he affirms
is, In plain terms, equivalent to this other, that an equal
providence must needs be unequal. Which may per
haps be true when he has proved these three points ;
i. That his sense of no transgressor escaping punish
ment is no prevarication. 2. That some inequalities, in
an equal providence, is the same thing as the common
providence. 3. That the observations of men must needs
be infallible. But to shew his answer jn its full shame,
let us consider only the last of them. The reader may
take notice that the words, immediately preceding these,
[of men's observations of inequality] speak of the false
hood of such observations, even in the case of David
himself, who owned that he was sometimes too hasty
in judging of these matters. And that he understood
not the course of God's justice till he had considered
the way in which an equal providence must necessarily
be administered under a theocracy, and the come-

?uences of such an administration^. Having said this,
join it to the proposition in question, by the conjunc
tion for ; [for even admitting] and refer to it by the
pronoun those, [those observations of inequality.} —
But we have here to do with a Doctor, as little like
David in his piety, as his sense : who, if the administra
tion of an equal providence, under a theocracy, must
needs be attended with the appearances of inequality*
tvill shew that God could not administer it at all : without
doubt, upon this principle, that God either ought not, or
cannot do, what man, with the degree of light God has
been pleased to give him, cannot comprehend. An

* Exam, of Mr. ff's Account, $c. p. 205.
t Div. Leg. Book V. § 4.

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 47

argutnent worthy this great advocate for the light of na~
fcure. But he is not ft man to be serious with. Having
done me the honour of giving me this proposition, that
an equal providence must needs be unequal ; he will
then tell the reader what I must needs infer from it.-—
" Is not this (says he) a plain acknowledgment that an
* equal providence cannot be administered at all, since'7
— Since what? The reader may imagine his premisses-
require hira to conclude thus, — " Since it must needs be-
*£ attended with such circumstances as occasion an iin-
*l equal providence** But this would be concluding like:
other mem No, he says — u since it must needs ba
*' attended with such circumstances as to occasion MEN'*
" OBSERVATIONS of inequality." And thus he himself
at length betrays his own sophistry. The truth is, it wras
so hardy in the proposition, that he was even ashamed
to repeat it in the inference. And so became the dupe,
mot of his returning honesty, but of his deserted courage*
His whole argument indeed is one complicated sophistry.
First, he takes what is there said of men's observations
of inequality to be true observations; whereas, they are
there said to be false ones. Secondly, he makes them:
to signify that men observed an unequal providence ?
whereas, they mean- that men observed some inequalities
iji an equal providence: which (whether he understands
it or no) is a very different thing.

He goes on thus : " But the instances he brings to
" SOLVE this difficulty [namely, the appearances of in-
** equality] are so many clear proofs against the thing;
" itself*/' How unlucky! The instances 1 brought
were to shew from whence the difficulty arose, not to
solve it. But with this writer, to solve or to rai&e a
difficulty is indeed much the same. Well, the instances
however are these: i. It appears from the reason of
the thing that this administration did not begin to b$
everted in particular cases, till the civil laws of the
republic had failed of their efficacy. Thus where any?
crime, as for instance, disobedience to parents, ivas
p.ublic> it became the object of the civil tribunal, an$
is accordingly ordered to be punished by the judge -f.
But when private and secret, then it became the,
* Exam. &c*.p, 2Q5». t Exod, xxi. 15. and I?.

object

4* REMARKS ON SEVERAL

object of divine vengeance *. Now the consequence of
this was, that when the laws were remissly or cor
rupt ly administered, good and ill would sometimes'
happen unequally to men. For we are not to suppose
that Providence in this case generally interfered,
'till the corrupt administration itself, when ripe for
vengeance, had been first punished. 2. In this extra
ordinary administration, one part of the wicked was
sometimes suffered as a scourge to the other. 3. 7 he
extraordinary providence to the state might some
times clash with that to particulars,, as in the plague
for numbering the people. 4. Sometimes the evtra*
ordinary providence was suspended for a season to
bring on a national repentance : but at the same time
this suspension was publicly denounced^. And a very
severe punishment it was, as leaving a state, which,
had not the sanction of a future state of rewards
and punishments., in a very disconsolate, condition.
And this was what occasioned the complaints of the
impatient Jews'];, after they had been so long accus
tomed to an extraordinary administration §.

Now what is our Doctor's answer to ail this? Why
still the old song — " If he is obliged in virtue of the
" theocracy to see that no transgressor escapes punish-
"'ment^*' And again, — " because otherwise, some
" transgressors would escape punishment^ " — And
again, — u whether an extraordinary providence over par-
" ticulars was then engaged so as that no transgressor
" should escape punishment, no observer of the law
" should miss present temporal blessings, is the point.
" to be proved**." And again, — " The great point was
" first to have proved, that ever there was such an extra-
" ordinary providence to particulars as that no trans-
" gressor ever escaped punishment, nor did any ob-
" server of tlie law miss his present reward '\'\" This
therefore being all his answer, I had given him his reply
beforehand. And have now nothing to do but to arraign

* Deut. xxvii. 16, and Prov. xxx. 17-

•j- Isaiah iii. 5. lix. 2. Ixiv. 7.

J Ibid. v. 19. Jer.xvii.15. Amosv. 1$. Zeph. i. 12. MaLii. 17.

§ Div. Leg. Book V. § 4. .

{( Exam, ol Mr. JVs Account, p. 206.

*• Jbid. p, 207. ** Ibid. p. 210. tf Ibid. p. 2l6.

him

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 49
him again, for a gecotti) attempt of putting off his false

o
ware.

But his logic is so very entertaining, that he will allow
us to divert ourselves with it a little ; especially as he has
given us so much leisure, by trusting all to one pitiful
sophism. It is where he says, " It appears from the
u reason of the thing, that this administration did not
" begin to be exerted in particular cases, till the
" civil laws of the republic had failed of their efficacy.
" Thus, where any crime, as for instance, disobedience
" to parents, was public, z> became the object of the
" civil tribunal, and is accordingly ordered to be
" punished by the judge. But when private and
" secret, then it became the object of divine vengeance.
" Let this be admitted. Now, says Mr. JFarburton,
" the consequence of this was, that when the laws
" were remissly or corruptly administered, good and
" ill would sometimes happen unequally to men.

" On the contrary, 1 say, that this is no consequence
'" at all: for upon supposition of an extraordinary pro-
" vidence, equally administered, the guilty persons ought
" to suffer by divine vengeance, and the corrupt and
•" remiss magistrate too, as being guilty of a crime in not
" doing his duty*." Here we see our disputant mistook,
which part of the syllogism he was to oppose : and so in
stead of the premisses, denied the conclusion. For if
he will admit that the administration did not begin to

C")

be exerted till the civil laws had failed, \h<^ consequence
is necessary, that, when the civil laws were remissly
executed, good and ill would sometimes fait unequally.
No consequence, at all, says Dr. Sykes. Why? be
cause ".upon supposition of an extraordinary providence
" equally administered, the guilty persons ought to suffer
" by divine vengeance," &$c. A man is to be tried by
the common commission of oyer and terminer. Let this
be admitted, says our Disputant. Why then, say I, the
consequence is, that he must stay till that time comes.
This is no consequence at all, replies he ; for, -upon
supposition that he ought to be hanged sooner, he ought
to be, tried sooner. But then, good Doctor, if you had
.this supposition in reserve, why did you admit my
* Exam, of Mr. JV's Account, p. 205, 206.

VOL. XII. E premisses^

50 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

premisses, which, when admitted, ex elude yo ur supposi
tion?— I thought I had done with him on this head
when I had laughed at him ; but there is something so-
malignant against the law itself, in his answer to what I
say of the suspension of an extraordinary providence,.
that the Reader must bear a little longer with us both.
" This suspension (he tells the Reader) I say was pub*
" licly denounced. But (he says) not one proof is pro-
" duced of such a public denunciation of the suspension
" of the extraordinary providence to particulars. The
ci only passages referred to for this public denunciation, —
u are Isaiah iii. 5. lix. 2. Ixiv. 7. Here is certainly a
" great evil threatened to Jerusalem and Jitdah ; but
" as for a suspension of an extraordinary providence^
" HERE is NOT OXE WORD. — It is as true now as it was
" then, that iniquities will separate between us and God ;
" and it has no relation to any suspension of an extra-
<( ordinary providence for a particular time*." Was
there ever such a reasoner! Suppose from a passage in>
jE/r^r, which speaks of the creation of a Dictator, I
should infer, that the consular and senatorial, the tribu-
nitial and popular powers were all for a time suspended ;
would it be sufficient to say,—- No; all which that pas
sage proves is the erection of a supreme magistrate ; and
erecting a supreme magistrate, which is a thing that may
be done now, docs not infer the suspension of those par
ticular powers. If to this fine reasoning, it be replied,
that the inference was fair, because, Irom other parts of
Livy, we learn there were such powers in the Roman
state ; which consequently on the erection of an higher
must needs be suspended; would not that teach the
Reader a ready answer to our Doctor ? Is not an ex^
traordinary providence as clearly declared by the Law of
Moses, as the consular and tribunitial power by the law
of Rome? And consequently, when God tells his peo^
pie that he will withdraw his face from them for their
feins, and return to them on their repentance, is not this
as plain a denunciation of the suspension of that extraor
dinary1 providence, as the creation of a dictator was a
suspension of all the other magistracies ? But so perverse
are these Answerers, and so much strangers to their
- ^— * of Mi-. W* Account, &c, p, 211, 212.

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 51

Bible, that an extraordinary providence to particulars,
which is a Scripture doctrine they dispute with me as if
it was my own; and a future state amongst the Jews,
which is their own, they would have not disputed, as if it
were a Scripture doctrine, — This being premised, let the
Bible now speak for itself. Isaiah iii. 'For behold the
Lord of Hosts doth take away from Jerusalem and

from Judah the stay and the staff ] the whole stay of
bread, and the whole stay of water, — Thy men shall Jail
by the sword, and thy mighty in the war, ver. i — 25.
Chap. lix. Behold the Lord's hand is not shortened
that it cannot save] neither his ear heavy that it
cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated
between you and your God> and your sins have hid his

face from you, }hat he will not hear, £c. ver. i, 2.
Ch. Ixiii. In all their affliction he was affucted, and
the Angel of his pretence saved them : in his love
and his pity he redeemed them, and he BARE THEM,

AND CARRIED THEM ALL THE DAYS OF OLD. hilt

they REBELLED, andvexcd his Holy Spirit', therefore
he zcas turned to be their enemy, and he fought
against them, ver. 9 — u. Ch. Ixiv. And there is
none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up
himself to take hold of thee : for thou hast hid thy
face from us, and hast consumed us because of our
iniquities, ver. 7.

Well, says he, " But let us admit that a suspension

1 of the extraordinary providence was publicly de-

* nounced, in these passages of the, Prophet. It was a

£ very severe punishment. To whom? Why to all

' the Jews — ALL of that nation, the virtuous and wicked,

< the good and the bad*."— Again, " The Jews had been

much accustomed to an extraordinay dispensation, and

now this extraordinary providence is suspended and

' publicly known to be so. This was a severe punish-

4 merit certainly to ALL good men, because God was

wont, and had engaged himself to inant particular

' blessings to all such ; WHEREAS BY THIS SUSPENSION

' THEY WERE NO LONGER IXTITLED TO ANY OF

4 THEMf." This is his representation of the state of
the case : and from this he forms all his difficulties against
* Exam, of Mr. Ws Account, p. 213. f Ibid. p. 214.

E 2 my

52 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

my reasoning. Where he got it, I know not : but cer
tainly not from the Bible ; the book of all others he seems
the least acquainted with. Had he looked into that, he
•would have found that he had given the most false and
injurious, because most contrary representation of this
whole matter. For the Bible tells us, that the severity
of the punishment, in this suspension, fell, as it ought,
not upon the good, but upon the evil only. Hear God's
own express declaration in the very place, where this
suspension is denounced, viz. the third chapter of Isaiah ;
which, too, our Examiner pretends to have read. SAY

YE TO THE RIGHTEOUS THAT IT SHALL BE WELL WITH
HIM: FOR THEY SHALL EAT THE FRUIT OF THEIR
DOINGS. Wo tfNTO THE WICKED, IT SHALL BE ILL
WITH HIM; FOR THE REWARD OF HIS HANDS SHALL

BE GIVEN HIM, vcr. ID, ii. And we learn, from a
parabolical command in EzeJdcl, how exactly these pro
mises were fulfilled — And the Lord said unto him. Go
through the midst of the city, through the midst of
Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the
men that sigh, and that cry for all the abominations
that be done in the midst thereof. And to others he
said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the
city and smite : Let not your eye spare, neither have
you pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids and
little children and women ; but come not near any
man upon whom is the mark ; and begin at my sanc
tuary, cSfc. chap. ix. ver. 4 — 6. And now, will our
learned Doctor be pleased to take this for an answer like
wise' to the concluding words of his paragraph? " The

* great point was first to have been proved that ever
14 there was such an extraordinary providence to parti-
" culars — This, I say, should first have been proved ;
*' which, I apprehend, has not been done. Nor, in

1 course, will any of these passages from the Prophets
" prove a suspension of that equal providence over
*' particulars, which SEEMS never to have been ex-v
" erted*."

I should not leave the passage, here quoted, without
observing, that, where I have made the break, it went on
with the old sophism, in this manner,—" As that no
* Exam, of Mr. W'% Account, &c. p. 214.

" transgressor

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS, 53

^ transgressor ever escaped punishment, nor did any
" observer of the law miss his present reward." But
I wave it, as beginning now to pity him. It has been
observed of your notorious story-tellers, that, by often
repeating a favourite tale, they have at last come to be
lieve themselves. And thus if seems to be with our good
Doctor. He has urged his own sense of the proposition
so often to all my arguments (not less, I dare say, than
twenty times) that he now seems in good earnest, to take
it for mine.

XIV. But we are drawing towards a conclusion with

him. The Author of The Divine Legation (says he)

u proceeds, in the last place, to give a full and general

** solution of the difficulty. It stands thus : the com-

4( mon cause of thete complaints arose from the

<( gradual with drawing the extraordinary providence.

" Under the Judges it was perfectly equal. When

" the people had rebeUiously demanded a King,

" and— God suffered the theocracy to be administered

4i by a viceroy, there was — a great abatement in the

1 vigour of this extraordinary providence — Prom

" hence to \he time of the Captivity the extraordinary

" providence kept gradually decaying^ till, on their

" full settlement after their return, it entirely ceased.

' This leaves us as much in the dark as any of the solu-

' tions before given. For the extraordinary providence

' over particulars (by which is ALWAYS MEANT such a

( providence that no transgressor escaped punishment,

' nor observer of the law missed his reward) kept

" gradually decaying to the Captivity. After Samuel's

6 time there was a great abatement in its vigour ; and,

1 from this time, it gradually decayed. Its abatement

' then must be in not inflicting constantly temporal evils

* on the one, or in not giving constantly temporal rewards
" to the other : or else" — Well, to stop him short, it did
consist in not giving constantly. What then? Why
then (says he) " it cannot be the former of these notions",

' because if the equal providence was not constant, it

would come to be the same as unequal. For what is

' the common providence, or not extraordinary, but where

• transgressors are often not punished here, but go on and
4 prosper in their wickedness ; and good men are often

E 3 " not

54 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" not rewarded but sometimes suffer*?" A most admi
rable argument! and, as well expressed. It cannot
(says he) he the former of these notions — meaning, I
suppose, that if the former of these notions be mine, he
will shew it to be a false one. Well, but his reason :
: BECAUSE if an EQUAL providence was not constant,
" it would come to be the same as UNEQUAL." Very
well quibbled again. What is not perfectly equal must
needs be unequal. Therefore, as more than ten may be
either eleven or eleven thousand ; so unequal may signify,
as well the highest degree of inequality, such as that
providence exercised at present, or some small deviation
only from equality. And this being so, he only desires
you, in courtesy to his argument, to understand it in the
first sense. And then with the same success, he will dis
pute against the Moon's equal or regular motion round
the Earth. You Astronomers, says he (for, to do him
justice, nothing comes amiss to him ; he has confounded
all men in their turns, and put every science out of coun
tenance) you contend for the mjoon's equal or regular
motion ; and yet you are forced to confess that there are
some inequalities or irregularities in that motion, arising
from the sun's attraction, the elliptical figure of its orbit,
and its not moving in the plain of the earth's motion.
Now if your equal motion be not constant, it 'would
come to be the same as unequal. For what is regular
motion but that which has no irregularities ? In short,
you have a great difficulty to surmount when you at
tempt upon your scheme of equality to account for the
representations of inequality, which Nature so plainly
inakes. As great authors as you are, what has been
hitherto published is all confusion, and jull of inex
tricable difficulties.

But, to make his argument wear the better, he has
lined his quibble with an equivocation. Observe his
words: if an equal providence (says he) teas not con
stant, IT WOULD COME to be the same as unequal. —
But when ? Why the quibble encourages you to under
stand presently, which is to the purpose: but if that
fail, the equivocation authorizes you to understand many
ages afterwards, though it be nothing to the purpose.
* Exam, of Mr. Ws Account, £c. p. 217— 9.

This

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS, 55

This equal providence of Heaven kept gradually declining
in its vigour, till it became at last the present common
unequal providence; and so could he no longer called
equal or extraordinary. Thus again, the regular motion
of the moon, as our great philosopher, who has so well
-accounted for its present irregularities, tells us, will pro
bably, for the reasons he assigns, grow more and more
•irregular, till it become at last so unconstant, that it will
•be no longer a regular but an irregular motion.

But we are not got to the stress of the affair. The old
sophism lies yet at the bottom of the inkhorn : but now
indeed so worn and hacknied, that it is scr:rce able to
support a miserable quibble. Yet it still puts its best
foot forward. This choice reasoning being introduced as
usual, " The extraordinary providence over particulars ;
" by which is ALWAYS MEANT such a providence that
" 7io transgressor escaped punishment, nor observer
'" of the law missed his reward.'" — ALWAYS MEANT!
Yes, truly, I can't but say he is constant enough in this
meaning. For which reason I must here, for the tj)ivtr
'ttUtC, remind him whom it belongs to. — " Mr. }l:arbiir-
" ton (says he) produces some evidence that an extra-
" ordinary providence revived after the return from the
'" Captivity. He cites Haggai, Zechariali, Malachi.
" But none of these places prove any thing more than a
6 promised blessing to the Jews nationally considered*."
Indeed? Why then had he not the honesty to quote
those places in The Divine Legation which do prove
more ? particularly from the prophet AMOS, where this
'extraordinary providence is considered as administered to
particulars. The words quoted in Book V. § 4. of The
Divine Legation are these — Also I have withholden
the rain from you, when there was yet three months
to the harvest, AND i CAUSED -IT TO RAIN UPON ONE

CITY, AND CAUS.ED IT NOT TO RAIN UPON ANOTHER
•CITY, ONE PIECE WAS RAIN-JED UPON, AND THE -PIECE
"WHEREUPON IT RAINED NOT, WITHERED f-. Btit he

goes on— " It proves a very strong promise t© bless the
' nation of the Jews^ — but as to a proof of an extra-
1 ordinary providence in the sense that NO TEANS-

' GRESSO& WAS TO ESCAPE PUNISHMENT, NOR NO
* Exam, of Mr. IP's Account, &c. p. 220. t Amos. iv. 7.

E 4 " OBSERVER

56 REMARKS ON SEVERAL

" OBSERVER OF THE LAW MISS HIS REWARD, I Cannot

" see the force of his argument*." But I can see the
force of his, though: and therefore here again accuse
him, for the feting and last time, of a very vile prevari
cation that has run through all his reasoning upon this
subject.

And now we are happily got through his whole Exa
mination of my Account of the Nature of the Jewish
Theocracy. A very singular composition truly ! One
part blunder, and two parts fallacy ! Which though
it may sometimes make, as a great writer assures us, a
good man of the world, has here however made a very
bad pamphlet. Arid no wonder. For this kind of com
position requires, in both cases, a very nice adjustment.
Otherwise, in playing the knave (whether it be on paper
or in public) folly is so apt to get the upper hand, that
very often the first dupe a designing man makes, is him
self : as, not to mince the matter, is the case of our
Examining Doctor, whose wantonness in undertaking a
subject he did not understand, has so far outstript his art
in managing it, that, before his fallacy had time to impose
upon others, his too frequent, and indiscreet repetition of
it had so worked upon himself, that he became no longer
able to judge of any thing I had written : and therefore
confesses (and I dare say truly) that what I have

jnTIiERTO PUBLISHED IS ALL CONFUSION, to him,
AND FULL OF INEXTRICABLE DIFFICULTIES f.

" But 'tis the sport to have the engineer
" Hoist with his own petar." .

We have now passed through our Two Examining
Doctors. Happy for them had they but known or under
stood that maxim of a certain celebrated French writer,

DE PRENDRE POUR VRAI CE QUE 131 T UN AUTEUIl,
SANS REJETTER COMME FAUX CE QU-'jL NE DIT PAS.

In these we find so great a similitude of talents, that
Dr. S. might very well be mistaken for Dr. S. were it not for
some minuter differences ; a kind of polemic badges, that
just serve to tell us to what party either wearer belongs.

But adjusting the merits of such kind of authors, is
now the least of my concern. I here bid a final adieu to

* Exam, of Mr. /F's Account, &c. p. 221. t Ibid. p. 222..

controversy,

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 57

controversy, unless some verv gross provocation draw ms
back. For though I have not overloaded the Public
with writings of tlfis sort, nor attempted to engage its
attention but on subjects of high importance ; yet even
these will receive their best defence and support, by being
carefully considered together, in the order I first delivered
them. For, as Lord Bacon says excellently well, THIS

HARMONY OF A SCIENCE, SUPPORTING EACH P-AKT
TPIE OTHER, IS .AND OUGHT TO BE THE TRUE AN 13
BRIEF CONFUTATION AND SUPPRESSION. OF ALL THE
SMALLER SORTS OF OBJECTIONS.

But in taking a formal leave it may perhaps be ex
pected, that I should say something why I ever answered
at all : and why I answered in this wanner.

To the first of these questions I must needs confess,
that I have never yet seen any thing which, in my own
opinion, deserved my notice. But I was willing to sub
mit to better judgments. The Public (says a Friend) by
what T can perceive, thinks there 13 something hi this
pamphlet — thinks there may be something in that. —
Well, I subscribe to the public judgment. I examine,
I write, I confute. And what do I get by it ? The morti
fication of being told, that now, forsooth, the Public
wonders why I should spend my time upon such
Writers. And in this manner I have been served —
more than once. The Public says this ; the Public says
that : in short, the Public's a wag, and loves to divert
itself at the expence of us poor authors. Of which
diversion, having so fairly contributed my quota, I shall
now beg leave to "retire — Lusisti satis.—

As to the manner in which I have answered some of
my adversaries : their insufferable abuse, and my own
love of quiet, made it necessary. I had tried all ways to
silence an iniquitous clamour; by neglect of it; by good
words, by an explanation of my meaning; and all without
effect. The First Volume of this obnoxious Work had
not been out many days, before I was fallen upon by a
furious Ecclesiastical News-writer, with the utmost bruta
lity. All the return I then made, or then ever intended
to make, was a Vindication * of my moral character,
with such temper and forbearance as seemed
• SeeVoLXL

affectation

,<$ REMARKS ON SEVERAL

Affectation to those who did riot know that I only wanted
to be quiet. But I reckoned without my host. The
angry man became ten times more outrageous. What
was now to be clone? I tried another method with him.
I drew his picture ; I exposed him naked ; and shewed
the Public of what parts and principles this tumour was .
made up. It had its effect; and I never heard more of
him. Oft this occasion, let me tell the Reader a Story*
As a Scot-ch Bagpiper was traversing the mountains of
Vlstef, he was, one evening, encountered by a hunger*
starved Irish wolf. In this distress, the poor man could
think of nothing better than to open his wallet, and try
the effects of his hospitality. He did so : and the savage
BWallowed all tliat was thrown him with so improving a
voracity^ as if his appetite was but just coming to him.
i he vvhde stock of provision, you may be sure, was soon
Spent* And now, his only recourse was to the virtue of
the bagpipe; which the monster no sooner heard, than
he took to the mountains with the same precipitation that
he had come douii. The poor Piper could not so per*
f'ectly enjoy his deliverance, but that, with an angry look
£t parting, he shock his head, and said, Ay ! arc these
your tricks ? — Had I kn'own your humour, you
should kdvt had yonr music before supper.

But though I had the Caduceus of Peace in my hands,
yet it was only in cases of necessity that I made use of it»
And therefore I chose to let pass, without any chastise*
ment, such impotent railers as Dr. Richard Grey, and
t>ile Bate> a Zany to a Mountebank. On the other hand,
\vhen I happened to be engaged with such very learned
"and candid writers as Dr. Middleton and The Master
vf the C/t&rter+kouse, 1 gave sufficient proof how much
1 preferred a different manner of carrying on a contro
versy, would my Answerers but afford me the occasion.
]3ut, alas? as I never should have such learned men long
rny adversaries-, and never wo-utd have these other my
friends, I found that, if I wrote at all, I must be con
demned to a manner, which all, \vho know me, know to
be most abhorrent to my natural temper. So, on the
whole, I resolved to quit my hands of them at once : and
turn again to nobler game, more suitable, as Dr. 8teb-
foing tells me, to my clerical function, that pestilent

herd

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS- 59

herd of libertine scribblers, with which the island is over
run ; whom I would hunt down, as good King Edgar
did his wolves ; from the mighty Author of Chris*
tiamty as old as the Creation, to the drunken bias*-
phemin<? Cobbler, who wrote against Jesus and the
Resurrection*.

To conclude, then, if hitherto, in the course of my just
vindication, any thing has escaped me, offensive to the
candid Reader, I heartily wish it unsaid. Not for the
sake of those, the So proper subjects of it, for, Si indignus
qui facer em, at illi cligni hac contumeiia sunt madinte :
but for the sake of the Public, to whtm I have obligations
for their fair and generous reception of my Writings.
Not but the candour and equity of their judgment will, I
know, always carry along with it what I am now about to
say, in alleviation of any harshness that may have escaped
me, under all the calumny that envy, in the disguise of
false zeal, has so liberally poured out upon me : which is
this : That my sole motive in writing The D re hie Lega*
tion was the discovery and advancement of Truth, and
(in that) the support and establishment of Revelation,
And if I needed a voucher, I have the pleasure to ob
serve, that the encouragement given to this attempt, is
sufficient to shew, that no considerable man, either iij
Church or State, did, indeed, ever think that I had any
other motive.

* In a pamphlet, intitled, The Resurrection of Jesus demonstrated
to have no proof. In answer to a late pamphlet, called, the Resurreo
tion of Jesus cleared, &c. London, printed for J. Jackman, iti Fleet
Street. Price One Shilling. — But some say this was no Cobbler, but
Dr. Morgan's own Apothecary, who now writes by his Master's
receipts. Indeed, he is of so strong a complexion as to make it
very probable he must be one whose trade it has been to apply him
self only to the wrong end of human kind. But whether he be of
this, or the other cleaner trade, I would recommend it to the fine
gentlemen to consider, if it will not soon be necessary, for their
honour, to profess themselves on the side of religion, since infidelity
is thus tallen into attainder, and can now descend no lower.

A

LETTER

TO

THE EDITOR

OF THE

LETTERS

the S2)irit of Patriotism, The Idea of a Patriot Kingf
and The Slate of Parties, fyc.

OCCASIONED BY

THE EDITOR'S ADVERTISEMENT.

I:- this my Gnidr,, Philosopher, and Friend? Pope to L. B.

SIR,

I AD DRESS this to you, as to a person different from
the Author of these Letters. My respect forL. B's
character will not suffer rne to think you the same. Your
Advertisement is the crudest and most unmanaged
attack on the honour of his deceased Friend ; and he
appears to be under all the ties of that sacred relation,
to defend and protect it.

Your charge against Mr. POPE, is in these words, —
" The original draughts [of these Letters] were intrusted
" to a man, on whom the Author thought he might en-
"' tirely depend, after he had exacted from him, and taken
" his promise, that they should never go into any hands,
" except those of five or six persons, who were then
" named to him. In this confidence, the Author rested
" securely for some years ; and though he was not with-
" out suspicion that" they had been communicated to

" more

TO THE EDITO*, etc. 61

" more persons than he intended they should be, yet he

" was kept, by repeated assurances, even from suspect-

" ing that any copies had gone into hands unknown to

" him. But this man was "no sooner dead, than he re-

" ceived information that an entire edition of 1500 copies

<c of these papers had been printed ; that tins very man

" had corrected the press, and that he had left them in

" the hands of the printer, to keep with great secrecy till

" further orders. The honest printer kept his word with

" him better than he kept his with his friend: so that

" the whole edition came, at last, into the hands of the

" Author, except some few copies, which" this person had

" taken out of the heap, and carried away. These are

tc doubtless the copies which have been handed about,

" not very privately, since his death. The rest were all

" destroyed in one common fire. — By these copies it ap«

" peared, that the man who had been guilty of this

" breach of trust had taken upon him further to divide,

" the subject, and to alter and omit passages, accorSing

" to the suggestions of his own fancy, What aggravates

" this proceeding extremely is, that the Author had told

" him, on several occasions, amongst other reasons, why

" he could not consent to the publication of these papers,

" that they had been written in too much heat and hurry

" for the public eye. — He chanced to know that scraps

" and fragments of these papers had been employed to

" swell a monthly magazine, and that the same honour'

" able employment of them was to be continued — The

" Editor, therefore, who has in his hands the genuine

" copy — resolved to publish it."

This is the charge. And as to the fact, that " Mr. P,
" did print an entire edition of Lord B's Letters without
" his consent," it must, as far as I can see, be taken for
granted. For the mem accused is dead. Me cannot
speak for himself; and his papers, which might have
spoken for him, were all of them devised, by the dying
man's last Will, to the trust and absolute disposal of his
noble friend,

i My complaint (and, I persuade myself, all impartial
men will indulge me in it) is, that the charge is inforced

with

fa TO THE EDITOR

with so unfriendly, nay, so vindictive a severity, that the
public is even invited to think the worst of the offender's
intention: there being nothing so base, or so mean,
which the terms of the accusation will not justify them
to infer from it.

Since, therefore, you have so far forgot the office of a
fair accuser, as not only to avoid assisting the judgment
of the tribunal, you appeal to, in the nature of the FACT ;
but to prefer your accusation in such terms as must neces
sarily mislead it ; let me be allowed to remind the Public
of what you have so disingenuously omitted or disguised.
Which I shall do no otherwise, than by considering all
the possible motives Mr. P. could have for this action,
supposing it to have been committed in the manner
charged upon him. For though the motive cannot so
alter the nature of actions, as to make that right, which,
in itself, is wrong: yet it may alleviate the weight of the
very worst; it may make others pardonable, which are
confessedly bad ; and in some again, it may give even to
their obliquities, an amiableness which a truly generous
mind would honour; and which the severest casuists
would only degrade into the limb us of their spleqdidcl
peccata. Whether the crime, in question, be not of this
class must be submitted to the tribunal, to which we now
Jnake our joint appeal.

In an offence of this nature, committed by one author
against another, the motive, that most readily occurs
to us, is plagiarism: so that one rni«;ht suspect this
breach of trust was accompanied with an intended vio
lation of property ; and that the offender proposed as
suming to himself the glory of his friend's performance ;
especially as he took the liberties here complained of,
" to divide the subject, and to alter and omit passages
" according to the suggestions of his own fancy." But
if, in criminal proceedings, it be held a reasonable answer
to the charge of a paltry theft, that the accused was im
mensely rich, we shall need no other plea to acquit Mr. P.
of this suspicion. Besides, the Author of the Letters
was well known to all L. B's friends ; the title-page of
surreptitious edition tells us, they were written by a

Person

OF THE LETTERS, 63

Person of Quality ; and the honest printer himself
knew the true author, as appears by his applying to Lord
J3. with information of the 1500 copies.

As to any lucrative views; if Mr. Fs beneficent;
temper, his generous contempt of money, which, made?
him at several periods of hi? life refuse an honourable*
pension from ministers of more than one denomination,
and decline every other way of establishing his fortune
than by a noble appeal to the public taste : if this, I say,
will not acquit him of so mean a suspicion, I might ap-»
peal to the very circumstances of the fact itself, llq
prints, at a considerable expence, 1500 copies of an
eighteen-penny pamphlet, to lie in the printer's warehouse j
and which, according to your own account, did actually
lie there till his death. And what book p one, whigh of
all the Author's writings, was least calculated to catch
the public attention (however this extraordinary Ather^.
tisement may now raise their curiosity) as the subject of
it Ixad been so often hacknied over in the papers pf ths
CRAFTSMAN. Had profit been his point, who can doubt
but he had rather chosen some of Lord B's ki&toricql
tracts, which he had equally in his possession p

Least of all will it be suspected to have been done to
injure L. B. in his fame or fortune ; the book itself being
manifestly calculated to support both, by putting him in,
that light wherein he most affects to be seen, a dis*
passionate and disinterested lover of his country,-^*
Had Mr. P. designed to hurt his ease or reputation, hfi
would probably have enriched us with his philosophical
or theological works, where his noble Friend gives less
quarter to religious prejudices, than, here, to political
corruptions : arid which, by their being kept unpublished,
deprive Religion of one considerable advantage.

In a word, had Mr. P. been conscious to hirqself qf
any low, oblique, or unfriendly motive, how happened it
that, at his death, he chose it should come to the kiipw*
ledge of his Friend ? That he did chuse it, is most cer*
tain. " His honest printer," you tell us; " faithfully
^ kept his word with him/7 His last illness wa,§ Ipng

64 TO THE EDITOR

and tedious, and known by him, as well as by his physicians,
to be fatal. He might therefore have burnt these 1500
copies with a secrecy equal to the ostentation with which
they were all destroyed in one common fire by this de-

Eositary of the writings and reputation of a MAN, whose
ist vows to Heaven were for the prosperity of iiis sur
viving Friend.

But, if we allow the fact, some reason, after all, must
be given for committing it. We have seen the high ab
surdity of supposing it to be on any of the motives already
mentioned : which, indeed, only envy and malignity can
suggest. One, only, remains : and happily, it is that
which every man, at first sight, must acknowledge to be
the true ; an excessive and superstitious zeal j or Lord
Ws glory. He paid, as all the world knows, a kind of
idolatrous homage to the divine attributes of his friend.
And should this be thought a folly by sober admirers,
(a strange one it must be to Lord B. himself) yet, sure his
Lordship, though the last, in justice, should be the first,
in pity, to forgive It.

He was not only the warmest advocate for his Lord
ship's private and pub tic virtues against Iiis adversaries,
but even against himself. It was his common subject of
complaint, amongst his other friends, that Lord B. was
faultily negligent of his glory, even where the good of his
country, and the happiness of the world, depended on its
being unveiled. That, 'though he seemed to be sent down
lather by Providence, from some higher sphere, to be
come the conservator of the rights and reason of man
kind, yet he suffered his actions to be misrepresented,
and his character to be blackened, even where the shew
ing himself, truly, tended to the happiness of the erro
neous. And this being an important concern, was the
reason, I suppose, why his Friend chose to prevent the
loss of these Letters : which, likewise, very well accounts
for his allaying the extreme splendor of them, so offensive
to mere mortals, with that terrestrial mixture of his own.
The very circumstance, which you, Sir, well express, where
you .say, " he had taken upon him, further to divide the
if subject, and to alter and omit passages, according to
10 4< the

OF THE LETTERS. 65

" the suggestions of his own fancy." Perhaps too lie
thought himselt something more than a porte-jeaiile of
his friend's papers ; for he frequently told his acquaint
ance (to whom I appeal on this occasion) that L. B.
would, at his death, leave his writings to his disposal — A
mutual confidence ! which they placed in one another.
But the execution of Mr. P's part, at the same time that
it makes the other probable, prevents our having any
written evidence of it. But concerning the particular
nature of those changes and interpolations, and the
difference between the two editions, I shall say no more
at present.

Having seen Mr. P's motives for printing, the reader
may be curious to know when he thought of publishing.
It could not be till he had the author's leave : that, the
long detention of the pamphlet in the printer's warehouse
sufficiently shews. It could not be in expectation of his
death : that, the great disparity in the chance of sur~
vivorship will not allow us to suppose. Besides, to what
purpose was the expence of printing, and the hazard of
secreting an edition, projected now, when he would have
had it equally in his power, if that event happened, to
do it then ? We have nothing left, even on your own
state of the case, but to believe that he expected very
speedily to obtain L. B's concurrence. What grounds
he had for such expectation, the prudent disposition of
his papers will not permit us to say.

The too eager pursuit then of his Friend's glory being
his only motive for this presumptuous liberty (a truth so
evident, that, I am persuaded, Mr. P. has not a single
friend or acquaintance remaining, who does not-as firmly
believe it, as that L. B, wrote the Letters, and that Mr.
P. committed them to the press) since this, I say, is the
case, his Lordship's known virtue will never suffer me to
suppose that you, Sir, and the Author of these Letters,
can be the same person.

His known 'wisdom would less endure such an impu
tation. Whatever you, Sir, may think, his Lordship's
glory will never stand fairer with posterity, than in the

VOL. XII, F lines

66 TO THE EDITOR

lines of this immortal poet. So that to defile the mirror,
which holds him up, by a kind of magic virtue, to the
admiration of all times and places, would indeed shew him
more detached from the world, and indifferent to cen
sure, than even you, his apologist, think fit to represent
him. It m':ct surely be some fatal necessity that could
make him willing to risk so flattering an advantage.
And yet your advertisement supplies neither him nor
your reader with any excuse of this nature. You thought
fit, I will suppose, that some reason should be given for
the publication of the Letters. But had not your Book
seller done this already, when he so often told the public,
that it was " to prevent their being imposed on by a
" spurious and mangled edition, of which one or two
" scraps had appeared in a Magazine?" Possibly you
will say, the reader might expect to know how they
came there. Why then did you not seek out and detect
the man engaged in that honourable employment, as by
a proper irony you call it? Sure it was no difficult mat
ter : for you tell us, again, that some of the copies ha d
been handed about not very privately since Mr. P's
death. Besides, the law would have obligated the pro
prietor of the Magazine to discover from whom he had
received his stolen goods. Why then so much tender
ness for him, who manifested his design by publishing,
and so little for him, who only gave suspicion of it, by
printing ? Or did the ORDER OF TIIIXGS, which, in
deed, (in Mr. P's language of his Lordship) was here
violated, require, that vengeance should pursue, and
trace up the crime, to the original offender : who had so
audaciously stretched his hand to the forbidden tree, and
gathered, without leave, of the knowledge of political good
and evil ? Or if the seventy of justice required even this ;
was it not enough to say, that the mischief came first from
Mr. P. by his giving 'abroad too many copies ; without
telling their COMMON ENEMIES, that he had printed fif
teen hundred ? For it came not from these, (which, you
own, " were all destroyed in one common fire") but from
a straggling copy which escaped that desolation. As this
brand therefore on Mr. Pope's memory wras needless,
it could not come from the hand of his noble Friend.

But

OF THE LETTERS. 67

But whatever high notions I myself may have of L. B~
I am not so vain to think my readers must needs sub
scribe to them. They may. Sir, for aught 1 know, believe
you and him to be the same. And then, I am half afraid,
even his character, great as it is, will not secure him from
their censure. Are the laws of friendship then so v\e..-.k
(may some of them be apt to say) are its bonds so slight,
that one imprudent action committed against the humour
of a friend, (in a mistaken fondness for his glory, which
came near to adoration) that one shall obliterate the whole
merit of a life of service, though flowing from the warmest
heart that the passion of friendship ever took possession
of? Obliterate, will they say. nay pursue, with inexora
ble vengeance, the poor delinquent to the foot of the most
merciless tribunal; that PUBLIC, one part of which he
had much offended by a vigorous war upon the general
profligacy of manners ; another, much more offended by
the insufferable splendor of his talents ; and no small nor
inconsiderable part, by his over-zealous attachment to his
very ACCUSER? Unhappy Poet! will they say, who has
received the only wound to his honour from the hand of
that friend, whose reputation, for many years, he had
singly supported against an almost universal prejudice.
But more unhappy FRIENDSHIP, if these be thy iniqui
tous conditions ! Who after this shall seek, in thee, a
solace for the cares of private life ; or believe thee to be,
what thou hast been so often boasted, the purest and
largest source of public virtue ? Never, after this,
wilt thou be thought deserving of a fairer or better pro
geny than MODERN PATRIOTISM. Where true love of
our country is, there friendship wears a different face.
At such time it has been known, that when real and re
peated injuries had torn in sunder a well-united friendship,
the death of one has buried every past resentment, and
revived, in the bosom of the other, all his ancient tender
ness : as if the refined and detecated passions of him,
who had shaken off mortality, had, by that divine sym
pathy of affections which lives in friendship, communicated
of their virtue to the survivor. Nay, I have heard, some
where or other, of a MAN, who, when his dying friend
(at the instigation, and to quiet the impotent passions, of

F 2 another;

68 TO THE EDITOR

another ; for what generous mind lias not been hurt by
ill- placed friendships?) had inserted an unkind clause
against him in his last U ill, took no other revenge for
an injury so unprovoked, t! an by doubling the legacy his
deceased friend had left to an oil faithful servant, because
the survivor deemed it to be too little.

But the greatest have tl/eir weaknesses. A French
author, I have some time read, who has given us a history
of the Hermetic Philosophy, brings almost every great
name into the number of h;s alchemists. He gives them
"all their che, but concludes every various eulogium alike
— " now his folly was in hoping <o extract go/d from
" baser metals.''' And may we not, after all the good
that may be said of our illustrious Poet (and there are
few of whom so much can be justly said) lament, that
the folly which ran through his whole life was, in trying
to extract friendship J row politics?"

However, Sir, let the world think as it may. I must
still persist in believing, that that noble Person , had no
hand in your Advertisement. On this principle, per
haps, it will be said, I might have left it to its own for
tune, as not' at ail likely to mislead posterity ; while it
represents Mr. P. as mean, low, interested, and perfidious,
whose nature, if I were to define it, I should do it by the
word FRIENDSHIP; so pure and so warm was the ray of
that sacred passion, which animated and governed all his
faculties. But when I consider how light a matter very
often subjects the best established characters to the sus?
picions oi posterity, posterity, often as malignant to virtue,
as the a^e that saw it was envious of its glory; and how7
ready a remote age is to catch at a low revived slander,
which the times that brought it forth saw despised and
forgotten almost in its birth, I .cannot but think it a matter
that deserves attention. These Letters, Sir, of your
publishing, afford us an indignant instance. The chastity
of the fir~$t Scipio Africanus, in the case of the Spanish
captive, was .as celebrated, and as notorious as Mr. P's
friendship for L. B. But one Valerius Antias (for ca
lumny and history, the Oldmlvcn of Rome) " made no
" scruple to assert, that, far from restoring the fair

" Spaniard

OF THE LETTERS. 69

" Spaniard to her family, he debauched and kept her/'
Ono would have hoped so mean a slander might have
slept forgotten in the dirty corner of a poor ped-mt'b*
common-place. And yet we see it quoted as a fact f, by
an instructor of kings. \Vho knows, but that at some
happy time or other, w!:cn a writer wants to prove, that
real friendship becomes a great man no more than real
chastity:!:, this Advertisement of yours may be advanced
to the same dignity of credit with the calnmnv of Valerias
Anl'ias ? If it should, I would not undertake to dispute
the fact, on which such an inference might be made ; for
I remember Tully, a great statesman himself, lorn? ago
observed, " Verse amicitiae difficillime reperiuntur in iis,
" qui in repuhlica versantur/'

* A. Gellius.

f u Now the refutation of the first Scipio was not so clear and
" uncontroverted in private as in public life ; nor was he allowed
*'^ by all to be a man of such revere virtue us he affected, and as
** that age required. Ncri'ius was thought to mean him in some
<l verses Gellius nas preserved. And VALERIUS ANTIAS made no
*' scruple to assert, that, tar from restoring the fail' Spaniard to
" her family, he debauched and kept her. Notwithstanding this,
" whit authority did he not maintain? in what f-sierm and venera-
" tiou did he not live and die?" p. 404, of The Idea of a Patriot
King.

The words of Ncci-ius are these,

" Etiani qui res mannas manu s,epe ge-sit gloriose,
*' Cujus f.'cta viva mine vigent; qui apud gehtes solus
" Fractal: eum suus pater cum pailio uno ab arnica abduxit."
These obscure verses were, in Gellivjfs opinion, the sole foundation
of dntias's calumny, against the universal concurrence of Hist'-rians.
His ego 'cersibus 'credo adductum ^dlcrium An fiat cm adversuffi ccteros
oitines tcfipfores de Scipionu moribus senfisse, L. vi. c. 8. And what
he thought of this historian's nu.'des v and truth, we may collect
from what he teils us of him in another place, where, having quoted
two tribunicial decrees, which he says he transcribed from Records
[ex annalium nwnumeritis] lie acids, that Valerius Antias made no
scruple to give the lie to them jn pu'Jic. " Valerius autem
" Antias, contra hanc decretonmi raemonam contraque auctoritates
" veterum annalium" — dixit, &c. L. vii. c. 19- And Ltiy in his
xxxvi B. quoting this Antias for the particulars of a victory, sub
joins, concerning the number slain, " scriptori parum fidei sit, quia
44 in eo augendo non alius intemperantior e.st." And he that will
amplify on one occasion, will diminish on another; for it is the
game intemperate passion that carries him indifferently to either.
I See p. 201, of " The Idea of a Patriot King.'*

r 3 In

70 TO THE EDITOR, &c.

In conclusion, what we may learn from the moral of
the tale is this, That excess, though in the social passions,
lays us more open to popular censure /than even the
total want ot them : because such excesses oiten produce
effects that low minds cannot understand; or it they
could, they would stfcl want hearts warm enough to teel
the value of them.

I arn, Sir, &c.

A

VIEW

OF

LORD BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY,

COMPLETE,

IN FOUR LETTERS TO A FRIEND;

Jn which his whole System of Infidelity and Naturalism
is exposed and confuted :

1754.

WITH

AN APOLOGY

FOR THE TWO FIRST LETTERS,

PREFIXED :

Lettre du feu President MONTESQUIEU a FAuteur.
Translation of ditto.
APOLOGY for the two first Letters.

LETTERS i. II. ILL IV. of the VIEW, &c. addressed to
Ralph, Allen, Esq.

LETTRE

du feu President MONTESQUIEU
a

J'AY recu, Monsieur, avec une reconnoissance tres
grande, les deux magnifiques ouvrages que vous aves
eu la bonte de m'envoyer, et la iettre que vous ni'aves
fait Fhonneur de m'ecrire sur les oeuvres posthumes de
M y Lord Bolingbroke : et comme cette Iettre me
parent £cre plus a uioi que les deux ouvrages qui Faccom-
pagnent, auxquels tous ceux qui out de la raison ont part,
il me semble que cette Lettre m'a fait un plaisir parti-
culler. .Fay lu quelques ouvrages de My Lord Baling-
broke, et sll m'e>t permis de dire comment j'en ai "etc
affeete, certainment il a bcaucoup de chaleur : mais il me
semble qu'il ['employe ordinairement contre les choses,
et il ne faudroit Tern plover qu'a peindre les choses. Or,
Monsieur, dans cet ouvrage ppsthume, dont vous me
donnes une idee, il me semble que v.,us prepare une
matiere continuelle de triomphe. Celui qui attaque la
Religion revelee n'attaque que la Religion revelee ; rnais
celui qui attaque la Religion naturelle attaque toutes les
Religions du monde Si Ton enseigneaux hornmes qu'ils
n'ont pas ce frein ci, ils peuvent penser qu'ils en ont un
autre : mais il est bien plus pernicieux de leur enseigner
qu'ils n't n ont pas du tout. II n'est pas impossible d'
attaquer une Religion revelee, 'parce qu'elle existe par
des fails particulars, et que les faits, par leur nature,
peuvent etre une matiere de dispute : mais il n'en est pas
de m£me de la Religion nature lie; elle est tii'ee de la
nature de 1'homme, dont on ne peut pas disputer, et du
sentiment interieur de riiomme, dont on ne peut pas dis
puter encore. J'ajoute a ceci, Quel peut etre le motif
d'attaquer la Religion revelee en Angleterre ? on ly^a
telleusent purge de tout prejuge destructeur qu'elle nV
pent faire de mal, et qu'elle j peut faire, au contraire,
une iniii ate de bieas. Je sais, qu1 un homme en Espagne

ou

[ 73 ]

ou en. Portugal que Ton va bruleiy on qui craint d'etre
briile, parcc qu'il ne croit point de certains articles de-
pendans ou non de la Religion revelee, a une juste sujet
de Tattaquer, parce qu'il pent avoir quelque esperance
de pourvoir a sa defence naturelle : mais il n'en est pas
de meme en Angleterre, ou tout homme qui attaque la
Religion revelee Fattaque suns interest, et ou cet homme
quand il reussiroit, quand meme il auroit raison dans le
fond, ne ieroit que detruire une infinite de biens pra
tiques pour etablir une verite purement speculative.

J'ay ete ravi, £c.

•MONTESQUIEU,

A Paris, ce 26 May 1/54,

LETTER

from the late President MONTESQUIEU

to the AUTHOR. '
SIR,

I All extremely obliged to you for tlie magnificent
Present you have been pleased to make me of your
Books, and for the Letter you did me the honour to write
me on Lord Bbtmgbroke's Posthumous Works. As
that Letter seems to be rather more my own than the
two Books which accompany it, every reasonable creature
being interested therein as well as myself, I enjoy it with
particular delight. I have dipped into some of my Lord
fiolirigbroke's Discourses ; and, if I may be allowed to
say in what manner they affected me, I must own that he
writes with a good deal of warmth ; but mcthinks he
generally employs it against things, whereas it ought to be
employed only in painting them. Now it appeal's to rne
that, in the posthumous work of which you have Driven me
an account, he hath prepared for you, Sir, continual matter
of triumph. He who attacks revealed Religion, attacks
revealed Religion only ; but, he who attacks natural Reli
gion, attacks all the Religions in the world. Though iueii
should be taught to disbelieve the obligations of revealed
Religion, they may still think themselves bound by some
Other; but it is most pernicious to endeavour to persuade

them

[ 74]

them that they are bound by none at all. It is not im
possible to attack a revealed Religion, seeing it depends
on particular facts, and facts are, in their own nature,
liable to be controverted : but that is not the case with
natural Religion ; for it is drawn from the nature of Man,
which cannot be disputed, and from the internal senti
ments of mankind, \vhichareequallyindisputable. Be
sides, what motive can there be for- attacking revealed
Religion in England ? In that country, it is so purged
of all destructive prejudices, that it can do no harm ; but,
on the contrary, is capable of producing numberless good
effects. I am sensible that, in Spain or Portugal, a
man who is going to be burnt, or afraid of being burnt,
because he does not believe certain articles, whether de^
pending or not depending on revealed Religion, hath very
good reason to attack it, because he may thereby hope to
provide for his natural defence. But the case is very
different in England \ where a man that attacks revealed
Religion does it without the least personal motive ; and
where this champion, if he should succeed, nay, should
be in the right too, would only deprive his country of
numberless real benefits, for the sake of establishing a
merely speculative truth. I was charmed, &c.

MONTESQUIEU*

Paris, May 26, 1754,

AN

APOLOGY

FOR

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS:

"WHICH MAY NOW SERVE FOR

A VINDICATION OF THE WHOLE

SOON after the publication of the two first of these
Letters, I had the honour of an anonymous adver
tisement, in the warmest terms of friendship lamenting
the displeasure, which my treatment of Lord Bolingbroke
had given to that part of the Public, where the Adver
tiser had an opportunity of making his observations.

There was in this friendly notice so many sure marks
of the Writer's regard to the Author of the View ; so
much good sense, elegance, and weight of authority in
the composition ; and the whole so superior to every
thing, but the force of plain and simple truth, that I had
as much pleasure in the honour of the admonition, as I
had real pain for the occasion.

He assures me I shall never know from what hand it
came ; so that when such a Writer will remain unknown,
it is foolish as well as indecent to presume to guess.

Yet I arn very confident that a Friend so generous
could never intend, by keeping himself out of sight, to
deprive me of the means of vindicating my conduct to
him. I am rather inclined to think, that he took this
method to oblige me to convey my Apology to him,
which he had a right to expect, through the hands of that
Public, which appear to have none : and which yet, I
am persuaded, it was his principal concern, I should first
satisfy* lor I must inform my Reader, that the severe

reflections,

76 AN APOLOGY FOR

reflections, I am about to quote, are not Ins proper senti
ments, but the sentiments ot' those whom lie is pleased to
honour with the name of the Public.

They are introduced in this manner: I am grieved to
the heart to find the reception your two Letters meet
With from the florid. — I am very sure he is; and so,
I think, must every good man be; and more for the sake
of that World than for mine. For what must an indif
ferent person think of a World, by profession, Christian,
of so exceeding delicate a feeling as to be less scandalized
at three or four bulky volumes of red-hot Impiety, be
cause they come from a LORD, than, at the cool contempt
of such an insult, in a Defender of the Religion of his
Country, because he may be a poor Priest or an ignoble
Layman? Will not every impartial man lament with me
so abject a state of things, as that must he, where atheistic
principles give less offence to our politeness, than ill-
mariners ; arid where, in good company you may be
better received with the plague-sore upon you, than the
itch ?

It vexes me (says the anonymous writer) to hear so
many positively deciding that the Writer must be —

by the SCURRILITY and abuse. -The term is a little

strong. But the best of it is, that it is one of those words
the Public think themselves at liberty to apply indif
ferently, either to scandalous abuse or to honest reprooj\
just as they happen to be disposed to the Author, or the
Subject. The equity of this kind of judgment, so readily
passed upon authors, had been sufficiently apparent in
the case of one much more considerable than the Author
of the'F/ettf. The Author of The Divine Legation of
Moses composed a book in support of Revelation ; and
sensible that the novelty of his argument would give the
alarm, and bring down whole bands of Answerers upon
him, he did all he could to invite fair quarter. He pub
licly engaged that a candid, and ingenuous Adversary
should never repent him of his civility. Answerers, as he
foresaw, came down in abundance : but it was not his
hap j;o meet with one who treated him \uth common
good manners. Of about a hundred of these writers,
one or two, and no more, he thought fit to answer ; and
(who can wonder!) without much ceremony. This was

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 77

in the heat of controversy, when his resentments were
fresh ; and the injury aggravated by every circumstance
of the lowest malice and most barefaced misrepresenta
tion. Since that time to the present, a course of 'many
years, he has seen these miserable railers, some with
names, and some without, go on in all the nonsense and
billingsgate with which they set out. Yet though he lias
seen all this, and without any other marks of resentment
than a contemptuous silence, he could not escape the
character of a scurrilous and abusive Writer. It was
in vain to appeal to his provocations then, or to his for
bearance ever since.

But to return to the Author of the View. He was
detected, it seems, by his scurrility and abuse. Surely
there must be some mistake, and my Lord's own dirt im
puted to his Answerer. The Author of the View seems
to be in the case of a scavenger (his enemies, I hope, v. ill
take no offence at the comparison), who may not indeed
be ovcrclean while at such sort of work ; but it would be
hard to impute that stink to him, which is not -of his
making, but of his removing.

The Letters are unrccrsally read] and it is almost
universally agreed that Lord' Bolingbroke deserved
any treatment from You, both as a man personally
ill used by him, and a member of that ORDER, WHICH

HE HAS TREATED IX THE LIKE MANNER: — In a LilW

of Vespasian, we read, Non oportere maledici Sena-
toribus ; remaledici, civile fasque ext. And the equity
of it seems , here to be allowed. But I will claim no
benefit from the authority of Vespasian, nor even from
that which I more reverence, my anonymous Friend's.
The truth is, that nothing personal ever once entered into
my thoughts while I was writing those two Letters. — •
Had that been the case, it would rather have been the
subject of my vanity, than my resentment. For nothing
could be more glorious for an obscure writer of these
dark and cold days, than to find himself treated in the
same manner with the greatest and most famous of the
golden Ages of ancient and modern Literature.

—But (says the anonymous letter) it may dishonour
a Gentleman and a Clergyman to give him that treat
ment he deserved, especially after his death. It is

falling

>8 AN APOLOGY FOR

Jailing into the VERY FAULT so justly objected t&
him: even/ body would have applauded your selecting
those instances of his railing, arrogance, and abuse,
had not you followed his example.- —This Public then
takes it for granted, that treating a licentious Writer as
BE DESERVES, may dishonour a Gentleman and a
Clergyman. Here, I think, we should distinguish.
When the tiling concerns only the civil interests of par
ticulars, a gentleman has but little provocation for un
usual severity of language, and less right to personal re
flection, especially on one of superior quality. But when
the highest of our religious interests are attacked, the in
terests not of this man, nor of that ; not of this community,
nor the other; but of our common Nature itself; and
where the People are appealed to, and invited to be
judges, there, I think, all paltry distinctions of title cease,
they vanish before so great an object, and every gentle
man who loves his Religion and his Country should take
the quarrel on himself, and repel the insult with all his

vigour.

When TRUTH or VIRTUE an affront endures,

Th' affront is mine, my Friend, and should be yours.

POPE.

The manners of a Clergymany if they are to be dis
tinguished from the manaers of a Gentleman, consist in
zeal for God, and charity towards man. The occasion-
will sometimes call out one, sometimes the other : they
may be exerted separately, but never at one another's
expence ; for they are disposed by Nature to be joint
promoters of the common good : as in the case before
us, I presume to say, a zeal for God is the greatest charity
to man.

Now when opinions of that kind, which the View of
L. Holing broke** Philosophy exposes, proceed to their
extreme, not to confute them in terms either of horror
or ridicule, for fear of transgressing the civil maxims of
politeness, would be like that Preacher, the Poet speaks
of, who scrupled to mention Hell before his audience
at Court. ,

It then, amongst the Christian duties, there be a force
to be exerted against deceivers, as well as a patience to be
observed in compassion to those who are misled; and

that

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 79

that the occasion before us was not a time for vigorous
measures ; I desire to know when this time comes ?

When men are sincere in their mistakes, after a dili
gent and candid search ; when the subject is of small
moment, such as the mode of discipline, the measure of
conformity, or a distinction in metaphysics ; the mistaken,
and even the per verse, should be treated with tenderness.
But when the avowed end of a Writer is the destruction
of Religion in all its forms ; when the means lie employs,
are every trick of prevarication and ill faith ; and every
term of scurrility and abuse; when, to use the expression
of Cicero, est inter nos non de ter minis, sed de tota
possessione contentio ; Then, a practised calmness and
an affected management look like betraying the cause
we are intrusted to defend , or, what is almost as ill, like
defending it in that way only which may turn most to
our private advantage : as where, in questions of the
greatest moment, we comply with this fashionable indif
ference ; or flatter it into a virtue ; when we should have
striven to rekindle the dying sparks of Religion by a vigo
rous collision with its professed enemies, whose faces (to
use the impolite language of the prophet) are harder than
a rock*.

Men who have had Christianity indeed at heart have
never been disposed, in capital cases like the present to
spare or manage the offender. When the incomparable
SriLLiNGFLEET undertook to expose the enormity of the
Court of Rome, in turning the dispensation of the word
into a lucrative trade, he prosecuted the controversy with
so much vigour of style and sentiment, as to be reviled
by those who found themselves affected by it, with the
names of Buffoon and Comedian. The servant of the
Lord (said they) must not strive, but be gentle unto
all men ; in meekness instructing those who oppose
themselves. An answer equally apt and satisfactory.
Without doubt, offenders would find themselves much at
their ease, when, secure from the resentment of the laws,
they understand they have nothing to fear from the ani
madversion of the learned.

But this leads me to another consideration, which may
further justify the Author of the View, in the account he

* Jer. v. 3.

has

8o AN APOLOGY FOR

has given of this relentless enemy of RELIGION and
SOCIETY.

The English Government, secure in the divinity of
that Religion which it hath established, and jealous of that
liberty which at so much expence it hath procured, doth
now, with a becoming consciousness ot the superiority of
truth and reason, think fit to suffer this, and many other
writings (though none so criminal in the form and manner)
to pass through the press, into the hands of the People;
writings, in which not only the institutions of positive and
national worship have been insulted, but even those very
buouNDS OF NATURAL RELIGION,, which hitherto have
been esteemed the bond of civil society, as they inforce
obedience on the principle of conscience. A bond, which
no nation under heaven but our own have ever suffered
to be brought in question : because no nation but our
own has a perfect confidence in truth, or is in perpetual
alarm for Liberty.

But do flagitious Writers therefore become more pri
vileged or respectable? Or rather. Is there not the greater
need that those evils, which the Public cannot redress,
should at least be checked and opposed by a private hand r
Why do the* civil laws of all other nations interfere to
punish these ofiqnders, but to prevent the mischiefs of their
writings ? Why are not the same laws put in execution
here, but from the experience, or, at least, from a fore
sight, that recourse to them has been, or may prove, in
jurious to public liberty ? However, the end is confessed
to be of the utmost importance, though these means may
be thought incommodious. What is leit then, but to
use others of a private nature, where no ill consequences
are derived to any but to the instrument employed in the
correction of these evils ? Now the mischief done by
licentious Writers is from their credit with the people.
If their credit be undeserved, the way lies open for the
defender of religion to lessen it, either by ridicule or se
rious expostulation. The Author of the l'riezv preferred
the first, lie thought it more effectual ; for novv-a-da,ys,
folly discredits more than impiety : he thought it more
generous ; for he had no design of bringing in the magi
strate to second his arguments. Nor is he one of those
4 im per-

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 81

im pertinents who are for directing authority, or who think
there is any need of such as him,

To virtue's work, to urge the tardy hall,
Or goad the prelate slumb'ring in his stall.
He rather thinks it becomes him to follow their example.
The CONVOCATION, in their late address to his MAJESTY,
lament the depravity of our times, evidenced beyond,
all former examples, by the publication of writings
which strike at the very vitals of all religion, and
shake the foundations of civil government. Yet they
are so far from throwing the scandal on the State, or
calling out upon the civil Magistrate for redress, that, as
if they even respected the slander of their enemies, they
engage themselves to his Majesty to exert themselves
to the utmost, to maintain the honour, of our most
holy faith. Let no one therefore take offence, that a
private man has adventured to lend his hand to that work
which the whole body of the Clergy hath, with so much
glory to themselves, engaged to undertake.

But his Lordship's death is a further objection to the
manner in which his writings are treated.

Cuperem ipse Parens spectator adesset !

Had these Essays been published during his life, and
had the Author of the View deferred his remarks upon
them, in expectation of this good time, the censure might
appear to have its weight. But what shall we say if his
Lordship was publicly invited to give his Philosophy to
the world, by the promise of a speedy answer? If a
writer's death may skreen his Works from the treatment
they would deserve in his life, he has a very effectual way
to secure both his person and his principles from dis
grace. Yet, where this is mentioned as an aggravation,
it is confessed that in these posthumous Works published
by his Lordship's direction, the Author of the View is
abused in the grossest manner. Now, what is said in
discredit of a living writer, and by one of his Lordship's
authority in politics and letters, may prove a real injury:
the harm to a dead writer is but imaginary. This is only
said to shew, that, had the Author of the Flew retaliated,
as he never had it in his thoughts, the return had been
still short of the provocation.

VOL. XIL G But

82 AN APOLOGY FOR

But he commits the VERY FAULT objected to Lord
Bolingbroke — and in selecting the instances of Jii$
railing and arrogance he follows his Lordship's EX
AMPLE. — This would be weighed. Lord Bolingbroke
has, in the most contemptuous manner, reviled almost all
the Wise and Virtuous of ancient and modern times.
lie has railed at the primitive saints ; the modern doctors,
the whole body of the Christian clergy ; and, in a word,
the whole race of mankind ; which, ever since religion
came amongst us, deserves, lie says, to be considered in
no other light than as one great aggregate of lunatics.
He has abused Moses and Paul; he has ridiculed the
SON, and blasphemed the FATHER. Here is another
writer, who by his scurrility and abuse is judged no

other than and what has he done? He has fallen

into the same fault, and followed his example. What,
Has he likewise railed at all the good, the virtuous, and
the pious ? Has he likewise had the arrogance to say,
that the world was one great Bedlam ? Has he likewise
blasphemed his Creator and Redeemer ? Alas ! DO — •
Two such writers would be too much for one age ! And
yet, what less can justify this Public in saying, that the
Author of the View has fallen into the same fault with
Lord Bolingbroke, and followed his example ? All
he has done is occasionally telling the world, That his
Lordship, once in his life, was for bringing in Popery
and the Pretender; and is now for introducing Na
turalism, a more specious form of Atheism : that he is
overrun with passion and prejudice : that he understands
little or nothing of the subjects he handles, which yet he
treats with sovereign contempt : that his learning is super
ficial, his reasoning sophistical, and his declamation in
flated : and that, if ever religion should happen to regain
its hold on the people, his philosophic works will run the
hazard of being applied to the lowest and vilest uses.
This is the substance of what he has said. And if this
be falling into the same fault '; and following his Lord
ship's example, the Author of the View, for aught I can
perceive, must be content to plead guilty.

But we will suppose, the manner of writing only, as

separated from the subject, is here to be understood. Is

5 the

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 83

the railing at all mankind ; at all religion ; at God Al
mighty himself; but of the same species of writing with
his, who shall tell the world, that this faiier was once as
much an enemy to the civil, as now to the religious
constitution of his country; that he reasons ill, and that
he declaims worse? Did the politeness of a clergyman
or a gentleman require, under pain of being matched
with his Lordship in railing and arrogance, that, after
the Author of the View had quoted all his Lordship's
horrors in principle and expression, he should have
added,

" This, good People, is the FIRST PHILOSOPHY, which
" is to be substituted amongst you, in the place of RICLI-
" GION. But take me along with you; Though this,
" indeed, be the bane and poison of your HOPES ; though
" it reduce humanity to the most disconsolate and for-
" lorn condition, by depriving it of the MORAL Ruler of
" .the World, and by dissolving all the ties of CIVIL
" government ; Yet, courage ! The Author was a man
" of distinguished quality, of uncommon abilities, and of
" infinite politeness. His great talents for business
" enabled him to see what was best for society ; his
" penetration into philosophic matters, what was best
" for human nature ; and his profound knowledge of
" divinity, what was best for both. Ha had governed
" states ; he had instructed kings ; and this last great
" Book of Wisdom was the result of all his skill and
" experience."

All this indeed I might have said : and, it is probable,
a good deal of it I should have said, had the aim of my
View been to recommend myself; and to raise a reputa
tion from the defeat of tiiis mighty n»an. Had this, I say,
been my aim, the raising the character ol an adversary
who was presently to fall by my hand, would hardly have
been amongst the last of my contrivances. But as I had
another purpose, the preventing the mischiefs oi his Book,
I took the different method of reducing his authority to
its just value ; which, by having been over- rated, had
prepared the way tor the easy reception of his opinions
amongst a corrupt people.

The Letters, says this Public (whose sentiment* have
been, with so much real kindness, conveyed unto me)

G 2 purport

84 AN APOLOGY FOR

purport to be a View of Lord Bolinghroke's Philo
sophy. They are a view of his life, morals, politics,
and conversation. It mail be true and just. But
that is not the question. Whether he made a good
treaty, or wrote the Craftsman, neither concludes
for nor against the divinity of the Christian Re
ligion.

I readily confess, that, had Lord Bolingbroke's morals
and politics nothing to do with his religious principles,
I had acted both an invidious and an idle part to bring in
his Treaties and his Craftsmen into a View of his
Philosophy. But I held all these to be the various parts
of the same system, which had contributed in support of
one another to produce a whole. I can believe he found
it for his ease in retirement, to adhere still closer to a
set of principles, which having forwarded his practice,
enabled him to bear the retrospect of its effects : but I
am much mistaken if he did not begin the world with
his notions of GOD and the SOUL; hence his rounds of
business and amusements

" Now all for pleasure ; now for church and state/

POPE*

The rest followed in course. For, as Cicero well ob
serves, Cum enlin DECRETUM proditur, Lex veri
rectique proditur : quo a vitio et AMICITIARUM pro*
ditiones, et RERUM PUBLICARUM, nasci solent.

But this is not all. I beg leave to say, there was not
only a close connexion between his principles and his
practice, but that it was necessary to a just defence of
Religion against him, to take notice of that connexion.

One of his Lordship's pretended purposes, in his
philosophic Essays, was to detect the abuses brought
into the Christian Religion by a CORRUPT CLERGY : my
aim in this View was to expose a species of Atheism,
inculcated on the ruin of all Religion by an IMPJOUSJ

DAYMAN.

Consider, how his Lordship. proceeded. — Not that I
place my justification on his example: that, indeed,
would be confirming the charge I am endeavouring to
refute ; neither would I insist upon the right of retaliation;
for, though that be something a better plea, it is the last

which

THE/TWO FIRST LETTERS., 85

which a writer for truth would willingly have recourse
to. I quote his Lordship's method with perfect appro
bation, as that which right reason prescribes to all who
propose the detection of error and imposture. His Lord
ship's point, as we said, was to shew, that the Clergy had
corrupted the purity and simplicity of Religion. It is
not my design to inquire with what ingenuity he has re
presented the fact, or how justly he has deduced the con
sequences, which he pretends have risen from it. He has
shewn some corruptions; he has imagined more; and
dressed up the rest of his catalogue out of his own in
vention ; all which, he most unreasonably offers as a legi
timate prejudice against Religion itself. Well, be it so,
that the Clergy are convicted of abuse and imposture.
The question, which every one is ready to ask, who thinks
himself concerned to inquire into the truth of the fact, is
cur BONO ? What END had the Clergy to serve by these
corruptions? His Lordship thinks the question reason
able, and is ready to reply, That they had a wicked anti-
christian yoke to impose upon the necks of mankind : in
order to which, they contrived to introduce such kind of
corruptions into Religion as best tended to pervert men's
understandings, to intimidate their wills., and to impress
upon their consciences an awe and reverence for their
spiritual tyrants. The answer is satisfactory, and shews
the use of this method of detecting error. With his
rhetorical exaggerations, with the extension of his list of
corruptions, with his ridiculous inferences, I have3 at
present, no concern.

As the Author of the Essays had, what he called, a
tyrannical hierarchy to unmask ; so, the Author of the
View had, what he called, a declared, an impious, an
outrageous enemy of all Religion to expose. I believe
they are both rightly named. Now, as errors to be de
tected, we must trace them to their source ; and as errors
influencing practice, we shall find their original to be in
VICE.

His Lordship had publicly and openly, in his respect
able character of a NOBLEMAN, a STATESMAN., and a
PHILOSOPHER, declared Religion to be all a cheat* sup
ported only by knaves and madmen ; which indeed was
a large party, since, by his own account, it takes in the

G 3 wholo

86 AN APOLOGY FOR

whole body of mankind. His Lordship had been held up
to the People* as an ALL-ACCOMPLISHED personage,
full and complete in every endowment of civil and moral
wisdom : and the enchanting vehicle in which his tri
umphant character was conveyed, had made it received,
even against the information of our senses. A PUBLIC
thus prejudiced, would, on such a representation of his
Lordship's religious principles as his Essays contain, and
the View collects together, be ready to ask, " Could so
sublime a genius be disposed to deprive himself, and us,
of all those blessings which Religion promises, had he not
discovered, and been perfectly assured, that the whole
was a delusion ; and therefore, in pity to mankind, had
broke the charm, which kept them from seeing their pre
sent good, in loud expectation of a recompence in the
shadowy regions of futurity ? " We say, deprive himself,
for he seems sufficiently vext, and sensible of his disap
pointment, when awaked from the pleasing dream of a
life to come. There is no one thought (says his Lord
ship) which sooths my mind tike this : I encourage my
IMAGINATION to pursue it, and am heartily afflicted
ichvn ANOTHER FACULTY of the intellect comes bois
terously in, and WAKES me from so pleasing a dream,
if it be a dream j\" — In this manner I supposed, that
they, for whose use the View w as intended, were disposed
to argue ; 1 mean that part of them who yet retain any
concern tor another life ; and who have not thrown off,
together with their guides, all thoughts of their journey
thither. Now, against this dangerous prejudice, the
Defender of Religion was to provide. He was first to
remove their delusion concerning Lord Bolingbroke's
philosophic character ; and to shew, that he had none of
those talents of reasoning, of learning, or philosophy,
which are necessary to qualify a man to decide on so im
portant a question. But this opposed only one half of
their prejudice. They could by no means be brought to
think that so good a man, so benevolent a citizen, so warm
a friend to mankind, as his Lordship's Essays represent
him, could be lightly willing to forego that great bond of

* See the Fourth Epistle of the Essay on Man, and the great
Poet's other Works.

f Letter xliii. to Swift, in Pope's Works, Vol. ix,

society,

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 87

society, that great support of humanity, RELIGION. The
Advocate of Religion therefore, unless he would betray
his cause, was obliged to shew, that the social light, in
which his Lordship puts himself, and in which he had
been placed by his poetical Friend, was a false one ; that
his moral virtues were the counterpart of his religious
principles; And public virtue (according to his favourite
Cicero) embracing and comprehending all the private*,
it was to the purpose of such a defence, to shew, that his
Lordship had been a BAD CITIZEX.

" Prodita laxabat portarum claustra Tyrannis

" Exsulibus "

Now though Religion has the strongest allurements for
the good and virtuous, it abounds with objects of affright
and terror to the profligate and abandoned ; who, in such
circumstances, have but this for their relief, Either to part
with their vices, or their religion. All the world knows
his Lordship's choice. He himself tells us, it was made
on the conviction of reason ; others think, by the delusion
of his passions. The world is to determine • and that
they might judge with knowledge of the case, the Author
of the View attempted to obviate the latter part of this
popular prejudice ; which would not suffer them to con
ceive any reason short of demonstration, that could induce
a man in his senses to part with the soothing consolation
of futurity, as his Lordship so justly calls it.

And now, I suppose, every candid reader will allow,
at least I am sure the candid Writer of the anonymous
Letter will allow, that his Lordship's morals and politics
come within the View of his Philosophy ; where the
question is of the TRUTH or FALSEHOOD of Religion;
and of his Lordship's AUTHORITY to decide in it.

To sum up this argument : His Lordship descants on
Romish superstition ; the Author of the Viezv, on his
Lordship's Philosophy : not to shew for what end the
one \vas established, or by what means the other was
produced, is relating facts without their causes; which
the Writer on the use of history justly throws into the
class of unprofitable things : and' therefore his Lordship,
speaking of the corruptions brought by the Clergy, into

* Omnes omnium Charitates P ATRIA una compkxa est.

G 4 Religion,

88 AN APOLOGY FOR

Religion, accounts for them by a SPIRIT OF DOMINTOX;
and the Author of the View speaking of his Lordship's
religious principles, reminds the reader of his MORAL
PRACTICE; but so far only as served that purpose, and
was, besides, notorious to all mankind.

Lord Bolingbroke (says this Public) deserved every
'thing of you ; but who are those friends and admirers
of his, whom you represent applauding all he wrote ;
whom you bring hi unnecessarily upon many occa
sions? I dare say they are very jew. You had
better have named them.

As unexceptionable perhaps as that: liberty might have
been thought, I should certainly have ventured on it, had
I conceived it possible for the reader to understand, by
$vch friends and admirers, any of those few illustrious
persons, whom Lord Bolingbroke's politeness, his distance
from business, his knowledge of the world, and, above'all,
his ambition to be admired, occasionally brought into his
acquaintance ; and who gave dignity and reputation to
his retirement. The chief of these I have the honour to
know7, and the pleasure of being able to inform those who
do not, that they were so far from being in the principles
of his Philosophy, that some of them did not so much
as know what those principles were ; and those who did,
gave him to understand, howr much they detested them.
Indeed, nothing but this fact, which I here assert on my
own knowledge, can account for the disposition in his Will,
concerning his philosophic papers. And were it only
for the sake of this fair occasion, of explaining myseltj
I could readily excuse all the hard thoughts this Public
seems to have entertained of me. As to the friends and
admirers who applauded all he wrote, I meant those
who persuaded him to change his mind, and give those
Essays to the Public, which he had over and over de
clared were only for the inspection of a few ; and which
those few had given him to understand, were fit for no
body's inspection at all. Nay, he seems willing the
world should know to whom it was indebted for this
benefit, by his letting those places in his Essays stand,
M'here he declares his own opinion of their unfit ness for
general communication.

But what grieves and hurts your friends most

(says

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. Sg

(says this Public) is still behind. Poor Pope did not
deserve to be treated by you with so much cruelty,
contempt, and injustice. In a work where Lord
Bolingbroke is represented as a monster, hated both
of God and Man, Why is Pope always and unneces
sarily brought in, only as his friend and admirer?
IVhy as approving of, and privy to all that was ad
dressed to him ? Why should he, who had many
great talents, and amiable qualities, be described only
^by the slighting epithets of tuneful and poetical. You,
say, Pope announced the glad tidings of all these things.
/// what work can he be said to have done it, except
in his Essay on Alan? This is throwing a reflexion
on the excellent Commentary on that Essay.

The Editor of Pope's Works certainly thought with
this generous Animadverter, that the great Poet deserved
every thing of his friends. For he tells us, " That to
" have been one of the greatest Poets in the world, was
" but his second praise : that Pope was in a higher class.
" lie was one of the noblest works of God : he was an
" honest man. A man who alone possessed more real
" virtue than, in very corrupt times, needing a Satirist
" like him, will sometimes fall to the share of multitudes.
" His filial piety, his disinterested friendships, his re-
" verence for the constitution of his country, his love and

* admiration of virtue, and (what was the necessary con-
" sequence) his hatred and contempt of vice, his ex ten-
" sive charity to the indigent, his warm benevolence to
" mankind, his supreme veneration of the Deity, and,
" above all, his sincere belief of Revelation (the Editor
" tells us), shall, amongst other things, be the subject of
61 the history of his Life. Nou (says he) SHALL HIS
" FAULTS BE CONCEALED. It is not for the interests
" of his virtues that they should. Nor indeed could

i they be concealed if we were so minded, for they shine
" through his virtues; no man being more a dupe, to
11 the specious appearance of virtue in others*."

But then, who it was that treated poor Pope with

cruelty, contempt, and injustice, Lord Bolingbroke, or

the Author of the View, let this Public themselves judge;

and, by their freedom from passion and resentment, at a

* See the Editor's AdwtMmwt to his Works,

time

90 AN APOLOGY FOR

trine when a frien d would be most hurt, they -appear
veil qualified to judge impartially.

When, on the publication of the Patriot King, Lord
Bolingbroke did indeed use the memory of poof Pope
with exceeding contempt, cruelty, and injustice, by re
presenting him, in the Advertisement to the Public, as
a busy, ignorant interpolator of his works ; a mercenary
betrayer of his trust ; a miserable, who bartered all the
friendship of his philosopher and guide, for a little paltry
gain. Who was it then that manifested his hurt and
grief for poor Pope ? Was it this Public I Or was
it the Author of the Letter to Lord Bolingbroke, on
that occasion?

But in what consists the contempt, cruelly, and in
justice of the View ? The contempt is in the slighting
epithets of tuneful and poetical : the cruelty in giving
instances of Pope's unbounded admiration of Lord Boling
broke- ; and the injustice in saying that he denounced the
glad tidings of the first philosophy, and that he ap
proved and was privy to all that was addressed to him.

My using the epithets of tuneful and poetical, in
speaking of a man who had many superior qualities, was>
I humbly conceive, well suited to the occasion. It is
where I speak of Pope as an idolatrous admirer of Lord
Bolingbroke : and they aptly insinuate what I would
fiave them mean, th&t, judgment had there nothing to do ;
!>ut all was to be placed to the friendly extravagance of
a poetical imagination. Who could fairly gather more
'from? it, than that my intention was to place his Lord
ship's ingratitude and Mr. Pope's idolatry side by side,
in order to their setting off one another ?

But cruelty is added to contempt, in the instances
I give of Pope's unbounded admiration. I am verily per
suaded, had Pope lived to see Lord Bolingbroke's returns
of friendship, as well in his Lordship's usual conversa
tion*, as in the Advertisement to the Patriot King,
tie would have been amongst the first to have laughed at

•~ o

bis own delusions, when this treatment of him had once
broken and dissolved the charm ; at least, he would have
been ready to laugh with a friend, who should ctmse to* turn
them Into ridicule. For he held this to be amongst the
.* See the conclusion of the fourtb Letter,

offices

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 91

offices of friendship, to laugh at your friends foibles till
you brought him to laugh with you ;

" Laugh at your friends ; and if your friends be sore,
" So much the better, you may laugh the more."
as implying, that, while they continued sore, they con
tinued to stand in need of this friendly operation.

My injustice consists in supposing Pope was privy
to all that was addressed to him. An injustice indeed,
had I supposed any such thing ; I, who with greater cer
tainty than most men, can affirm, that he was privy to
nothing of the secret, but the design of the address, and
the preliminary discourses. So little* did Pope know of
the principles of thvjirst philosophy, that when a com
mon acquaintance, in his last illness, chanced to tell him
of a late conversation with Lord Boiin^broke, in which his
Lordship took occasion to deny God's moral attributes
as tliey are commonly understood, he was so shocked that
he did not rest till he had asked Lord Bolin^broke, whe
ther his informer was not mistaken? His Lordship
assured him, he was; of which. Pope with great satisfac
tion informed his friend. Under this ignorance of his
Lords hip's real sentiments it was, that Pope gave easy
credit to him, when he vapoured that he 'would demon
strate all the common metaphysics to be wicked and
abominable*. And this leads me to that part of the
charge, where it is said, I could only mean the ESSAY
ON MA:NT, by the glad tidings of the first philosophy.
I meant a very different thing ; and alluded to the follow
ing passages in his LETTERS. Do not laugh at my
gravity, but permit me to wear the beard of a philo
sopher, till I pull it off, and make a jest of it myself.
*2 is just what my Lord Bo ling broke is doing with ME-
T^ PHYSICS. I hope you will live to see, and stare at the
learned Jigure he will make on the same shelf with
Locke and ilhilebranche^. And again, Lord Boling-
broke is voluminous, but he is voluminous only to de
stroy volumes. I shall not live, I fear, to see that
work printed | . Where, by the way, his fancy that this
METAPHYSICS was designed for the public, shews he

* Bolingbroke to Swift, Letter xlviii. Vol. ix.
t Letter Ixxi. Vol. ix, J Letter Ixxiii.

knew

92 AN APOLOGY FOR

knew nothing of the contents. This then was what I
i»eank The Essay on Alan I could not mean. For
in the 55th page of the View, I make the fundamental
doctrines of that Poem and of his Lordship's Essays to
be directly opposite to one another. The one, a real
vindication of Providence against libertines and bigots ;
the other a pretended vindication of it against an imagi
nary confederacy between divines and atheists.

Thus I have explained, in the best manner I am able,
my reasons for speaking of this great Poet in terms which
give offence. But what shall we say, if this air of negli
gence to liis memory was assumed, the better to conceal
the author of an anonymous epistle? The motive sure
was excusable ; though the project was without effect ;
for this Public have positively decided, that the author
must be by the scurrility and abuse.

But, Had you pursued (say they) the advantage you
/have ingeniously taken from an expression in one of
Pope's letters, to have shewn that Pope differed from
Soling broke where he teas in the wrong ; that he not
&nty condemned but despised the futility of his reason-
ing against Revelation^ that where he was right
Pope improved but never servilely copied his ideas ;
you would have done honour to your friend and your-
self', you would have served the cause of Religion ;
you would have discredited Lord Bolivgbroke the
more by the contrast

Now all this, the reader will see in the fourth fetter,
I had actually done ; and (as it was in its place) fully and
largely too. In the mean time, every body might see, it
was what I was ready, on a fit occasion, to do, by the
passage referred to just above from the second ; where
Pope is honoured, and Lord Bplingbroke the more
discredited by the contrast*

But I must not leave this head without taking notice of
one expression in the censure. It is said, that the View
REPRESENTS L. Bolingbroke as a monster hated both
&f God and Man. The expression had been juster, had
it been— /rom the View it may be COLLECTED; be- ^
cause, whatever ideas men may form of his Lordship
from a perusal of the View* they arise from his Lord
ship's own words, which are faithfully quoted. What

the

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 93

the Author of the View adds, is only a little harmless raillery,
which can present the reader with no idea hut what (in
the opinion of Pope) arises from every fruitless attempt
of impiety.

" Heaven still with LAUGHTER the vain toil surveys,
" And buries madmen in the heaps they raise."
That the Author of the View assisted in the dressing
ftp so strange a sight, as a monster hated both by God
and Mail) was very far from his intention. He made a
scruple of accompanying his Lordship's quotations with
those reflections of serious indignation which such a scene
of horrors naturally suggests, lest lie should he thought to
aim at something more than private animadversion. He
therefore generously endeavoured to turn the public at
tention from the horror, to the ridicule, of the first
philosophy, and to get his Lordship well laughed at; as
being persuaded, that when the public is brought to that
temper, its resentment seldom rises to any considerable
height

Men had better speak out, and say, the Author of the
View ought to have represented L. Bolingbroke as neither
detestable nor ridiculous. He could have wished, that
liis sense of honour and duty would have permitted him
to have done so. He is neither a fanatic, nor an enthusiast,
and perhaps still less of a bigot. Yet there are occa
sions when the most sober and candid thinker will confess,
that the interests of particulars should give way to those
of the public. It is true, there are others, when polite
ness, civil prudence, and the private motives of friend
ship, ought to determine a man, who is to live in the
world, to comply with the state and condition of the
times ; and even to chuse the worse, instead of the better
method of doing good. But his misfortune was, that
this did not appear to him to be one of those occasions,
in which, when he had explained the doctrines and opi
nions of an erroneous writer, he could leave them with
this reflection : " These are the Writer's notions on the
£ most important points with regard to human happiness.
" They are indeed very singular and novel. But then
" consider ; the Writer was a great man, and high in all
" the attainments of wisdom ; therefore weigh well and
" reverendly before you condemn what I have here

" exposed

94 AN APOLOGY FOR

" exposed to your judgment." But had-I, with a view to
prudence, said this, Would it have secured me from
OFFENCE, the very thing that PRUDENCE would most
avoid ? Would it not rather have furnished out another
handle, a handje for the making me a confederate in his
guilt, only a little b' tter disguised? Had this happened,
it would not have been the first time I had been so served,
when endeavouring to avoid offence.

And yet there was but one of these three ways ; either
to laugh, to declaim, or to say nothing. I chose the first,
as what I fancied least obnoxious ; in which, however, I
was mistaken ; and as most likely to do good ; in which,
I still hope, I was not mistaken.

The only harm L. Bolingbroke, whose reputation of
parts and wisdom had been raised so high, can possibly
do, is amongst the PEOPLE. His objections against
Religion are altogether of the popular kind, as we feel by
the effects they have had, when used by their original
authors, long before his Lordship honoured them with a
place in his Essays. What then was that man to aim at,
•who had made it his business (indeed without being set
on work) to put a speedy stop to the mischief, arid neither
to palliate the doctrines, nor to compliment the author of
them, but to give a true and succinct representation of his
system, in a popular way; to make a right use of that
abundance, which the ESSAY sand FRAGMENTS afforded,
to shew that his Lordship's principles were ay foolish as
they were wicked ; and that the arguments used in sup
port of them were as weak as they were bold and over
bearing : that he was a pretender in matters of learning
and philosophy ; and knew no more of the genius of the
Gospel, than of that supposed corruption of it, which he
calls artificial theology. This I imagined to be the only
way to reach his Lordship's AUTHORITY, on which all
depended ; and then, the very weakest effort of ridicule
would be able to do the rest. These were my motives
for the method I laid down ; and whatever impropriety
there may be in divulging them in a way that tends to de
feat their end, it should, I think, be laid to the account of
those who make this explanation necessary.

1 have been the longer on this matter as it will serve for
an answer to what follows.

Lord

THE TWO 'FIRST LETTERS. 95

Lord Bolhigbroke (says thk Public) is so univer
sally and no ju-stiy obnoxious to all sorts and ranks
of ^people, that from regard to him, nobody cares
how he is treated', but be assured your MANNER has
destroyed ail the merit of the work. — Though with re
gard to the manner I have said enough ; yet the candid
reader, I am sure, will allow me to add a word or two
concerning the effect of an unacceptable manner, in, a
ttork of public service. It had, till of late, been always
deemed desert to do a general good, though in a way not
perfectly acceptable. But we are now become so delicate
and fastidious, that it is the manner of doing, even in
things of highest importance, which carries away all the
merit. And yet, this false delicacy on a question of no
less moment than Whether we shall have any Religion
or none at all, seems as absurd as it would be in a great
man to take oftence at an officious neighbour for saving
his falling palace, by a few homely props near at hand,
when he should have considered of a support more con
formable to the general taste and style of architecture in
his Lordship's superb piece ; or to tind him disconcerted
by that charitable hand, which should venture to pull his
grandeur by head and shoulders out of a flaming apart
ment.

But in these suppositions I grant much more than in
reason I ought. I suppose the PUBLIC TASTE, which
the manner in -question has offended, is a reality, found
ed in nature ; whereas 'tis the fantastic creature of fashion,
and as shitting and capricious as its parent TRUTH,
which makes the matter of every honest man's inquiry,
is eternal; but the manner suited to the public taste,
is nothing else than conformity to our present passions, or
sentiments ; our prejudices, or dispositions. When the
truths or the practices of Religion have got possession of
a people, then a warmth for its interests, and an abhor
rence of its enemies, become the public taste ; and men
expect to find the zeal of an Apostle in every defender of
Religion : but when this awful power has lost its hold,
when, at best, it floats but in the brain, and comes not
near the heart, then, if you expect to be read with appro
bation, you must conform your manner to that polite

indifference,

gG AN APOLOGY FOR

indifference, and easy unconcern, with which we see every
other trial of skill played before us.

But now I am advanced thus far, I will venture a
step further. When infidelity first made its appearance
amongst us in set discourses addressed to the public,
our ecclesiastical watchmen instantly took the alarm ; and
communicated it to their brethren with a warmth and
vigour that gave lustre to their high trust. No writer
escaped unnoticed ; no argument remained unanswered -y
and a learned critic received public honours, as the de
liverer of his country, in rescuing common sense from
the very silliest rhapsody* that ever disgraced harnan
reason. But since the danger is become imminent, or,
to speak more properly, since the mischief so much
dreaded has done its work, and one would naturally ex
pect to see this vigilance increased, and the body up in
arms, we find a perfect peace and tranquillity reign1,
amongst them. Which, were it not attended with equal
unconcern, one might mistake for a well-grounded con
fidence in vigorous measures. As if it were our unhappy
fete to be still mistaken, as well when we thought the
Church in danger, as now when we appear to believe"
it triumphant !

Indeed (says this Public) It [your manner] has fur
nished your enemies with a handle to do you infinite
mischief. Your COLD friends lament and make the
worst sort of excuse, by imputing it to a temper con-
tract ed from the long habit of drawing blood in con
troversy ; Your \\*AKM friends are out of countenance,
and forced to be silent, or turn the discourse.

Would not any one by this imagine, that the Author
of the View, after much pretended opposition to infidelity,
was at last detected of being in confederacy with it, and
all along artfully advancing its interests ; that the mask
had unwarily dropt off, and that he stood confessed, what
Lord Bolingbroke has been pleased to call him, an ad-
locate for civil and ecclesiastical tyranny ? At least,
no one would imagine, that this handle afforded to his
enemies of doing him mischief, was no other than the
treating the Author of the most impious and insulting
* Discourse of Freethiaking.

book

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 97

book that ever affronted public justice, as a bad reasoner
and a worse philosopher, whose VANITY led him to abuse
every name of learning, and his FEAR to discredit every
mode of religion.

These cold friends however acted in character; the
great secret of whose address is the well poisoning an
apology, or, as the excellent writer better expresses it,
making the very worst excuse they can jind. But
here, methinks, we want their usual caution, which rarely
suffers an ambiguous expression to admit of a favourite
meaning : for, the compliment of drawing blood in con
troversy, the Author of the View may fairly take to him
self with great complacency. As ^ his controversy has
always lain in a quarter very remote from political alter
cation ; neither with ministers nor factions -, and on no
less a question than the truth and honour of Religion,
against infidels and bigots; the drawing blood shews
him to have been in earnest, which is no vulgar praise.
It would be but poor commendation, I ween, of a brave
English veteran, who had seen many a well-fought field
for liberty and his country, to say, he never drew blood',
though such a compliment might recommend the hu
manity of a champion at Hockley-hole. When the situa
tion of the times have engaged two learned men, at the
head of opposite factions in a Church, to engage in a party-
quarrel, and play a prize of disputation, with the reward
placed, and often divided, between them, it is no wonder
if there should be much ceremony, and little blood shed.
But the Author of the View writes for no party, nor party-
opinions; he writes for what he thinks the TRUTH ; and,
in the point in question, for the CLERGY, its Ministers
(they will forgive him this wrong) ; and as both of
them are yet by good fortune of public authority, he
thinks himself at liberty to support them, though it be by
drawing blood from premeditated impiety, from low
envy, or malicious bigotry ; which, he apprehends, are
not to be subdued by management or a mock-fight Yet
as much in earnest as he is, he should be ashamed to
turn the same arms against simple error ; against a naked
adversary ; or against the man who had thrown away his
weapons ; or, indeed, against any but him, who stands
up boldly to defy religion, or, what is almost as bad, to

VOL. XII, H dishonour

98 AN APOLOGY FOR

dishonour it, by false and hypocritic zeal for the errors
and corruptions which have crept into it. In a word,
had I written with any oblique views, and not from a
sense of duty, I should have suited the entertainment to
the taste of my superiors. For a man must be of a strange
complexion indeed, who, when he has conformed to
religion for his convenience, will yet scruple to go ony
and reap the benefit of his compliance, by conforming
to the fashion.

So far as to the Author's cold friend*. With respect
to his warm ones, They have not played their parts so
well ; they seem to have given up their cause too soon.
They might have said with truth, and a full knowledge of
what they said, u That no man was more disposed than the
Author of the View, to comply with the temper of the
times ; and especially with the inclinations of his friends ;
to whose satisfaction he has been ever ready to sacrifice
his own inclinations ; but, to their services, every thing — •
except his duty and his honour : was he capable of doing
this, he would not deserve a virtuous friend : that pro
bably he considered the matter in question as one of those
excepted cases, where he could hearken to nothing but
the dictates of honour, and the duties of his station : that
he saw religion insulted, a moral governor defied ;
Naturalism, a species of Atheism, openly, and with all
the arts of sophistry and declamation, inculcated ; and
the opposing world insolently branded as a cabal of fools,
knaves, and madmen." They might have said, " That
where errors of small consequence are in question, or
even great ones, when delivered with modesty and can
dour, suitable measures are to be observed : but that
here the impiety and the insult were both in the extreme."
To which, in the last place, they might have added most
of those other considerations, which have been urged in
the course of this Apology. And had they been so
pleased, the Defence had not only been better made^ but
with much more dignity and advantage to iheir client.

However, the Author of the View has yet the vanity,
amidst all this mortification, to reflect, that there is a
very wide difference between displeasing, and the being
disapproved : and that t his yery Public, who complain
by the pen of my anonymous friend, feel that difference.

The

THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 99

The decencies of acquaintance, the impressions of habit,
and even the most innocent partialities, might make them
uneasy to see Lord BOLINGBROKE exposed to contempt :
but their love of the Public, their reverence both for its
civil and religious interests, will make them see with
pleasure his PRINCIPLES confuted and exposed. When
a noble Roman had in public Senate accused one of the
greatest pests of his age and country, he observed that
the vigour with which he pursued this enemy of the Re
public, made many worthy men uneasy ; but he satisfied
himself with this reflection, tantum ad fiduciam vel
met urn differ t, nolint homines quod facias, an non
probent.

In a word, my duty to God,, to my country, to man
kind at large, had, as I fancied, called upon me to do
what I did, and in the manner I have done it. If I have
offended any good man, any friend to my person, or my
cause, it is a sacrifice to duty ; which yet I must never
repent of having made, though the displeasure of a
friend be the severest trial of it I know what that man
has to expect, both from infidelity and bigotry, who
engages WITHOUT RESERVE in the service of Religion.

" Ah! let not VIRTUE too, commence his Foe!"
However, I have long since taken my party :

Omnia prascepi, atque animo mecum ante peregi.
" Nee recuso, si ita casus attulerit, lucre pcenas ob
" honestissimafacta, dumFLAGiTiosissiMA ULCISCOR."

Jan. 4, 1 755-

H 2 A VIEW

ioo A VIEW OF LORD

A

VIEW

OP

LORD BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY,

LETTER L

TO

RALPH ALLEN, ESQ.

DEAR SIR,

LORD BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY, so much and
so long talked of, is now come, and very fairly, into
the hands of the Public. For I think it would be injus
tice to the Editor to suppose his Lordship did not design
us this LEGACY. His last Will sufficiently declares his
kindness to us. But, you will say, he speaks of his
Philosophy as a thing composed only for the solace of a
few friends in a corner *. What then ? might not his
Lordship change his mind, and extend his benefits ?
Hardly, you think, without contradicting his professed
principles. So much the better. The publication then
M ill be of a piece with the rest. And never trouble your

* " Let us seek truth, but seek it quietly as well as freely. Let
" us not imagine, like some who are called FREE-THINKERS, that
" every man who can think and judge for himself (as he has a right
" to do) has therefore a right of SPEAKING, any more than of
" acting, according to the full freedom of his thoughts. The free-
" dom belongs to him as a rational creature. He lies under the
" restraint as a me?nbcr of society. — As we think for ourselves, we
" may keep our thoughts to ourselves or communicate them with
" a DUE RESERVE, and in such manner OKLY, as it may be done
" without offending the laws of our country, and disturbing the pub-

tl lie peace." Bolingbroke's Works, Introductory Letter to Mr.

Pope.

head

Lett. I.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 101

head with one contradiction, where you may meet with
a thousand.

Quid te exempt a levat spinis de pluribus una ?

Now though I know you have as little curiosity to hear
what a Freethinker can object to the FAITH which has
got possession of your heart, as what a pick-pocket can
chicane to the property in your purse ; yet the name of
L. BOLIXGBROKE'S METAPHYSICS (which, I think,
were become as famous, and hitherto as little understood,
as his POLITICS) cannot sure but incline you to some
slight acquaintance at least with this FIRST PHILOSOPHY,
as he calls it; and which, in the manner of other con
querors, he erects on a general desolation.

The only part of his Lordship's character, that yet re^
rnained equivocal, was his literary. How this will fare
by the publication of his Philosophy r, I will not pretend
to say ; perhaps ngt altogether so well as his friends
might give him the pleasure to expect. He frequently
tells his reader, that the doctrine of his ESSAYS and
FRAGMENTS had been occasionally thrown out amongst
them, and made the subject of many free conversations.
And while he harangued in that circle, I will suppose he
met with the applause he sought after. But had he chose
himself to bring them to the bar of the Public, he might
have seen strange revolutions, " Illic, et Judex tacet,
" et Adversarius obstrefiif, et nihil TEMERE DICTUM
" perit : et, siquid TIBI IPSE SUMAS, PROBANDUM est :
" et, omisso MAGXA SEMPER FLANDI TUMORE, loquen-
* ' dum est *." Indeed his Lordship could hardly expect
to escape the severity of this tribunal but by the superior
evidence of his principles : since his meditations on divine
matters are so extensive, that scarce any one, who has
written in defence of virtue, or religion, but will find him
self either insulted in his person, or misrepresented in his
opinions ; and this, merely for being in the great man's
way.

But surely, when a person of his Lordship's polite
manners had condescended to enter into learned alterca
tion, the world might expect, at least for the courtly
management of controversy, a most consummate model,

* Quint.

u 3 which

102 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. I.

which should either reform, or should for ever discredit,
the grosser polemics of the schools. So that though the
DIVINE might expect no great matter from these oracles
of reason, yet he should readily accept his amends in the
manner of so elegant a pen. And perhaps you, who
have observed their commerce with the world, and their
conduct to one another, might be apt to think they would
have been no losers by the bargain. Indeed, Divines
have been generally thought wanting in forms ; whether
their prkje prompts them to appeal to the authority of
reason ; or their prudence teaches them to submit to the
wisdom of their betters. And the management of their
controversies in the schools, and their interests in courts,
have, on different accounts, been equally obnoxious both
to the dealers in truth and falsehood. I would willingly
avoid both their extremes. For I would, if possible, pre
serve and support that love and reverence to an useful
body, which the noble Writer, relying not on his own
politics but on other men's, has in hisjourth Essay de
voted to destruction. He, indeed, may call for aid on
the secular arm ; he has the old reason for so doing ;
but I dare say, the Clergy never will Things a^e now
come to that pass, that the State seems to be in more
need of their support, than they, of the State's. For,
though the cavils of licentious men always end in the
confirmation of truth and virtue, yet they generally set out
in loosening the hold, which religion had got upon the
/PEOPLE. And when that is gone, what other engine the
magistrate will invent, to keep the multitude in order,
they, whose principal concern it is, would do well to
consider.

As I said, then, I had taken it for granted, that our
noble Adversary, for an adversary he has condescended
to be, would be principally anxious to teach us in his
writings, what was his wont in conversation, that studied
politeness, which is so well fitted to keep inferiors at a
distance : and that, when he had declared mortal war
against every tiling the world hath hitherto called RELI
GION ; and against every order of PRIESTS, or MINISTERS,
which civil government has thought proper to establish
for the support of it, we should see his attack carried on
by the fairest as well as strongest reasoning, the gentlest

a*

Lett. I] BOLINGBROKFS PHILOSOPHY. 103

as well as firmest address, and the politest as well as
keenest raillery.

But how were we disappointed, to find this conservator
of states, this legislator in philosophy and religion, utterly
unable to raise his head above the rank contagion of the
schools: to see polemics go their usual train: and. this
sun of our new system, whirled along the turbid vortex
of controversy, like any the most ignoble of the earthly
bodies! But his POET, or rather his prophet (who so
magnificently announced to us the glad tidings of all these
good things) had prepared us for it. lie had con
templated this strange phenomenon : not, indeed, without
$urprize. Is it riot, says he,

— " mighty odd ?

" A fit of vapours clouds this DEMI-GOD !"
To be plain, I met with nothing in these big volumes, but
Ihe rankness of SOUTH without his force ; and the ma
lignity of MARVEL without his wit. You shall not take
it on my word : the evidence lies before us. Give me
leave then to present you with a SPECIMEN, under his
own hand, of his candour, his temper, and infinite polite
ness. And .though one can but ill judge of the harvest
by a sample of the field-flowers, yet we may form a pretty
good guess of the soil.

Nor is thjs intemperance of language, of which I pro
pose to giye you a .taste, the mere escape of fancy or
humour, which it would be candid tp overlook : it is a
sort of 'formula dicendi, without which all his Lordship's
authentic acts of legislation would be invalid : it is the
very spirit of his new religion, without \yhich, the whole
would be indeed but a dead letter.

It was with the less reluctance I entered upon this part
of my design, that I might have to justify myself to the
world for the plainness and freedom with which I may
hereafter chance to treat his Lordship's REASONING;
for, as Quintilian well observes, ^ Prjestatur hoc all-
" quando etiam DIGNITATJBUS ut libertatis nostnp ratio
" reddatur, ne quis nos aut pctula ntes in liedendis his,
" aut etiam ambitiosos putet."

Without any further prologue, then, let the show begin :
only premising, that as his Lordship had a FIRST PHILO
SOPHY to erect; he had an immense deal of rubbish to

H 4 remove:

104 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. I.

remove : the authority of every great name, and of every
sacred order, standing directly in his way.

With CUDWORTH he begins: and of CUD WORTH he
says, The heads of many reverend persons have been
turned by a preternatural fermentation of the braln>
or a philosophical delirium. None hath been more so
than this Divine*. Again, CUDWORTH [in his IN
TELLECTUAL SYSTEM] gives you little less than a
nonsensical paraphrase of nonsense. It was not his
fault. The good man passed his life in the study of
an unmeaning jargon ; and, as he learned, he taught.

To talk, like CUMBERLAND, of promoting the good
of the whole system of rational agents, amongst whom
God is included, and of human benevolence towards
him, is to talk metaphysical jargon and theological
blasphemy.

CLARKE triumphs in this foolish and wicked rodo
montade, Sfc. All CLARKE says about the discovery
of God's will, is a rhapsody of presumptuous reason
ing and ofprofane absurdities. — Audacious and vain
sophist / His terms have a solemn air, that may im
pose on the unwary, and confirm the habitual preju
dices of others; but more absurdity cannot be stuffed
into so few words.

Of WOLLASTON, he says, But I will detain you no
longer about such discourse as would convince you, if
-you heard it at MONROE'S, that the Philosopher who
held it was a patient of the Doctor's not yet perfectly
restored to his senses. Again, of the same excellent
person, We have here an example of the second sort of
madness mentioned above. The man who writ all this
nonsense was a man of parts. — But when these learned
lunatics, $:c.

CLARKE and WOLLV\STON soon grow outrageous;
and ready to be chained together. Indeed, from hence
forth, they are rarely shewn asunder. We sometimes
find them in the height of a metaphysical J'renzy : and,

* Not to distract the attention by numerous particular refer
ences to the Quarto Edition of BOLINGBROKE'S Works, we
presume on the Author's accuracy of quotation, and refer the
Reader generally to the Octavo Edition lately published, in eight
volumes. Ed.

Lett. I] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 105

by what one can perceive, without much provocation.
They had proved the soul to be a thinking substance
distinct from matter : we may allow them to be jealous
of the glory of this atchievement. But who contested it
with them ? Nobody, that I know of, before his Lord
ship. And he very civilly let them enjoy the honour of
it for life.

The President FORBES is really mad', but it is only
quoad hoc. For observe, he was ?w Divine by pro
fession, but something better. Indeed, not much —
He was a LAWYER. Of which UNLEARNED profession,
as he calls it, ninety-nine in a hundred at least (he
says) are petty-Joggers, sharpers, braiders, and
cavillers.

But, to give the better edge to his well-tempered lan
guage, he sometimes dips it in irony : and then it is, The
good Earl of Nottingham ; and the righteous Bishop
Sherlock. They deserved his anger. The first publicly
defended, and ably too, tlvdtjaith which stands so much
in his way : and the other ventured to oppose that party,
whose patronage he had condescended to assume *.

He comes next to the whole BODY of the Christian
Clergy. And now thcjfirst Philosophy begins to work,
and the task to grow serious. The PRIMITIVE SAINTS
and DOCTORS have the precedence, as is fitting. u The
" list of MARTYRS consisted, I believe, of those who suf-
" fered for BREAKING THE PEACE. The PRIMITIVE
" CLERGY were, under pretence of religion, a very LAW-
" LESS TRIBE." " ALL the Christian FATHERS using a
" DELIRIOUS STYLE, it became that of Christian theo-
" logy." " It would scarce be possible to believe that
" the greatest saints and doctors of the Church had talked
" so much BLASPHEMOUS NONSENSE, and employed so
" much artifice about it, if their writings were not ex-
£ tant." — " Of all this absurdity, profancness, and
' ridicule, they who built up Christian theology were
k' guilty."- -You ask, with surprise and impatience,
What this absurdity was ? He was going to tell you ;
for he never minces matters. " They ADDED (says he)
" the EPISTLES to the GOSPELS ; the doctrines of PAUL
" to those of CHRIST; till the APOCALYPSE became a

* See The Craftsman.

" part

loo A VIEW OF LORD [Lett I.

" part of our holy Scriptures/' And now, I hope, you
are satisfied. If not, take what follows, " Christian
" divines ancl philosophers have done more to DEBASE
" our notions of the Supreme Being, than all the doctors
" of Polytheism."

This was reasonably well, for new- beginners ; but no
thing like the exploits of MODERN DIVINES.

" It is MADNESS, or something MronsE than madness,
" for divines to imagine themselves able to comprehend
" a whole economy of divine wisdom from Adam down
" to Christ. And yet this is so customary, that not
" only the learned and ingenious, but every dabbler in
" theology, who must pass for a fool or a knave when-
" ever he grows extravagant, affects to reas.on in the
" same manner."

— " Would divines insist chiefly on the external proofs
" of the authenticity of Scripture — they would avoid a
" great deal oj BLASPHEMY." — They are absurd and
licentious in urging both the " external and internal
" evidence of Revelation."

— « Our divines turn themselves to declaim on cer-
" tain and undoubted marks of divine authority of the
" Scriptures of the Israelites — Let us compare some of
<( these supposed marks with those of human original,
" and they will stare us in the face, and point out plainly
" the FRAUD and IMPOSTURE."

— " It is common and yet astonishing to observe, with
" how much solemnity and confidence almost all those
" who teach and defend Christianity, presume to AFFIRM
" ANY THING, though never so evidently FALSE."

— " The best, and even such as pass for the fairest
" controversial Writers, improve by artifice the natural
" infirmity of the human mind. They do, on purpose,
" confound ideas and perplex the signification of signs —
" the most scandalous frauds are applauded under the
" name of subtilties. This I call theological fraud.3*
Hence, in another place, he says, that folly and knavery
prevail most amongst divines,: and again, that They
are THE PLAGUES AND SCOURGES OF THE WORLD.

" The doctrine of Clarke and other Christian divines,
" about our obligation to imitate God, is FALSE and

LOFANE."

Divines

Lett I.] BOLINGEROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 107

" Divines have IMPUDENTLY and WICKEDLY assumed,
" that there is a law of right reason common to God and
" man."

" What I have advanced \\ ill be treated as an impious
" paradox by some of the trifling solemn dogmatists iu
*' criticism and theology, who have advanced so many
" absurd and impious paradoxes of their own."

V\ e now come to what the noble Author calls the

DELIRIUM OF METAPHYSICAL THEOLOGY. " The man

il who walked souerly about in the Bedlam of Paris, and
" believed himself God the Father, was mad. Thus the
" philosopher, who takes a bold leap from a few clear
^ and distinct ideas to the first principles of things, is
« mad."

" The reasoners a priori resemble very much one

" sort of MADMEX. borne of these are so VERY MAD,

" that they lose all use of their reason. Others again

' deduce consequences, and argue very justly, but are

' STILL MAD : because they reason from principles that

' have no appearance of reality out of their own over-

' heated and disordered imaginations. You will find

•" instances of this kind, without the trouble of going to

4 Bedlam ; but you will find them principally in colleges

" and schools"

•—" They deserve to be treated like patients proper
1 for Dr. MONROE, and to be put under his care.
' Nothing less than metaphysics could have turned so
" many good heads."

Well then, divines arc all MAD ; and, for fear of mis
chief, in safe custody. Sometimes, indeed, his Lordship
lets them out to cool, and air themselves; nay, he is so
good to give them their lucid intervals; but it is only to
play the'rogue, and to cant in the pulpit -y and then,
back again to their kennel, to Monroe,, and his disci
pline; or, what is much worse, to his Lordship's; to hear
themselves called fools, knaves, cheats, madmen, im
postors, and blasphemers. And, for these hasty changes
pi the scene, he has contrived a most ingenious expedient.
He has divided the clergy into the two classes of theolo
gians and metaphysicians • in the iirst of which, the
KNAVE is predominant; in the second, the ?.IADMA.\.
So that he has of either sort always ready and at hand,

just

io8 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. I.

just as he wants them. But as madmen are much easier
dealt with than knaves, he has prepared one common
BEDLAM for them all. For God forbid (he says) he,
should be as uncharitable as divines, to think they de
served a worse place, as blaspheming in their senses.
Good man ! How kind now is all this ! How humane !
What shall the clergy do for him in return? Alas! he
thinks not of it : his modesty is still greater than his
charity : and he is only anxious not to be misunderstood.
He is even ready to fear that divines should take his honest
freedom in dudgeon; and that it may possibly procu re
him, in return, some ecclesiastical BILLINGSGATE ; to
be called infidel, deist, and perhaps atheist. My re
ply (says he) to so ANGRY disputants should be CALM,

AND SUCH AS MIGHT TEACH CHARITY tO thoSC who

preach it so much, and practise it so little. To say
the truth, his Lordship seems, like JUSTICE SHALLOW in
the Play, to be suspicious of those he had so well enter
tained. Davy (says the Justice, of his Court-guests) be
civil to these knaves, for they will BACKBITE. Not
worse than they are BITTEN (replies Davy) for they
have marvellous foul linen. Whether his Lordship
found the Priest's surplice in the like condition, or whe
ther he has left it so, is not material. No marvel at its
evil plight, when it has been so long overrun with vermin ;
such as Toland, Chub, Morgan, and those who have been
since bred out of them.

The BILLINGSGATE, however, if we give but equal
credit to what, we see of his Lordship, and to what we
hear of the clergy from their enemies, lies pretty nearly
between them. Yet I agree with him it becomes the
ministers of religions, much less than it does his Lord
ship. They are disputants', he is an orator. Their
business is to reason ; his is to rail. While each confines
himself to his province, all goes well. But should they
change weapons ; should the orator attempt to reason^
and the disputant be provoked to rail, every thing would
be out of order. I venture, on the authority of Quintilian,
to reckon railing amongst the A RTS of eloquence. " CON-
" VITJIS implere ^ACUA causarum," says this able
rhetor. It is true he holds it to be of the less perfect
kind — " ebtenim prorsus CANINA ELOQUENTIA." But
4 his

Lett. I.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 109

•

his Lordship might naturally think, that his dog-eloquence
was well enough fitted to their dog-logic. However,
Quintilian would not overload this species of eloquence,
nor would I ; though neither of us be disposed to extol
it ; he confesses there is yet a ranker kind. " Sed luce
" minora sunt ILLO VITIO ANIMI, quo MALEDICUS a
" MALEFICO non distat, nisi OCCASION E." " In which
" (says he) nothing but Opportunity is wanting to make
" the evil-speaker an evil-doer.7' But the minister of
state must join the orator before this compound excel
lence can display itself; just as the divine and atheist
must conspire to make that ARTIFICIAL BLASPHEMY",
which gives his Lordship so much concern.

But the mention of this CONSPIRACY reminds me that
it is now high time to give you some account of it.

Hitherto we have only the outlines, or at most the
general air of this clerical portrait ; all he could catch
at the first sitting. A horrid combination finishes the
picture: a CONFEDERACY: BETWEEN DIVINES AND

ATHEISTS, TO DISHONOUR AND DEGRADE THE GoD OF

THE UNIVERSE. This is the striking feature; and so
artificially disposed, that, turn the portrait which way you
will, it has still a plotting, which, in his Lordship's jus
tice, is little better than a hanging look.

A confederacy so mad, so monstrous, may perhaps
startle you at first. But do not be frightened. Take my
word for it, it will come to nothing. It is a treaty of his
own making. And you have heard enough of his talents
for treaty-making. It is true, you say, he could reconcile
the most unnatural alliances to the delicacy of his morals ;
and the most ridiculous miscarriages to the superiority of
his politics-, but a confederacy between divines and
atheists ! Was any thing so odious ! What think you,
my Friend, of that blind bargain he once drove between
certain of King George's Protestant Subjects, and a
Popish Pretender ? How that came to nothing, he has
not thought fit to tell us, in his curious account of that
transaction*. But, as to this confederacy, I may have
an opportunity of shewing you, that, after all his pains to
form it, he betrayed and dissolved it himself. At present,
my business is only to shew you what he says of it.
* See the whole Letter to Sir \V, Windham.

" After

no A VIEW OF LORD [Lett L

" After pleading the cause of natural and revealed
4 religion, I am to plead the cause of God himself, against

" DIVIXES AXI) ATHEISTS IX CONFEDERACY."

" The conduct of Christian divines has been so far
*c from defending the Providence of God, that they have
" joined in the clamour against it. Nothing has hindered,
" even those who pretend to be his messengers, his em-
" bassadors, his plenipotentiaries, from renouncing their
*c allegiance to him, as they themselves have the FROXT
*' TO AVOW, but the hypothesis of a future state. On
*c this hypothesis alone they, insist ; and therefore, if this
" will not serve their turn, God is disowned by them, as
" effectually as if he was so in terms."

" Divines, if not atheists, yet are ABETTERS of
<c atheism."

" That there were some men who knew not God in
" all ages may be true : but the scandalous task of COM--
" BATING- HIS EXISTENCE, under the mask of theism,
" was reserved for metaphysicians and theologians.''

• — " Divines are still more to be blamed. A COJT-
" FEDERACY WITH ATHEISTS becomes ill the professors
" of theism. No matter. They PERSIST, and have
" done their best, in conceit with their allies, to DESTROY
" the belief of the goodness of God : they endeavour to
" DESTROY that of his goodness, which is a farther article
*£ of their alliance."

" The cox FEDERACY between atheists and divines
" appears to have been carried VERY FAR. — Nay the
" atheist will appear, to that reason to which they both

" appeal, more consistent in his absurdity than the
ft i • • ?•»
' divine.

" Divines UPBRAID God's goodness, and CEXSURE
" his justice."

" INJUSTICE is, in this life, ascribed to God, by
" divines."

. " The whole tribe of divines, like \Follaston and
" Clarke, do in effect RENOUNCE the God whom you
" and I adore, as much as the rankest of the atheistical
" tribe. Your priests and our parsons will exclaim most
" pathetically, and RAIL OUTRAGEOUSLY at this asser-
" tion. But have a little patience, and I will prove it
** to their shame to be true."

Give

Lett.!.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY, in

Give me- leave, Sir, for once, to go a little out of my
way to vindicate the whole body of divines from the
horrid calumny of this imaginary confederacy. To say
the truth, the charge is too serious to be passed over
with the same lightness I am disposed to treat the rest
of his Lordship's extravagances.

Be pleased then to understand, that ATHEISM has
ever endeavoured to support itself, on a FACT, which
has indeed all the certainty that the evidence of sense can
give it; namely, the unequal distribution of moral good
and evil.

• — " Cum res hominum tanta caligine volvi
" Adspicerem, Icetosque diujiorere noccntcs,

" Vexarique pios LABEFACTA CADEBAT

" RELIGIO"-

was the common language of the impatient sufferer. — •
From hence the atheist inferred, that the universe was
without an intelligent Ruler ; and all things driven about
by that fate or fortune, which first produced them.
DIVINES opposed this conclusion : for they did not
venture to be so paradoxical as, with his Lordship, to
call in question the premisses, a phenomenon which ob
jected itself to all their senses. They demonstrated,
strictly demonstrated, the being of a God, and his MO HAL
attributes : and then shewed, that if the whole of man's
existence were included in this life, the present distribu
tion of moral good and evil would contradict that de
monstration. They, therefore, inferred, on their part,
that the whole was not included in this life: but that
man was reserved for an after-reckoning ; in which, an
equal distribution of rewards and punishments would
amply vindicate the providence of a righteous Governor.

But atheists were not the only enemies that divines
had to deal with. There was a set of men, who allowed
an intelligent first Cause, endowed with those moral attri
butes, which divines had demonstrated: and, on that
account, called themselves DEISTS. Yet they agreed so
far with atheism, as to confine the whole of man's exist
ence to the present life. These, the divines combated,
in their turn ; and with the same arms ; but in an in-
rerted order. In disputing with the atheist, the principle

held

us A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. I.

held in common was the present unequal distribution
of good and evil. So that to cut off their conclusion
from it, of NO GOD, they demonstrated his being and at
tributes : and from that proof inferred that the inequality
would be set right. With the deist, the common principle
was the being and attributes of God. Therefore, to
bring them to the allowance of a FUTURE STATE, they
appealed to the present unequal distribution of good
and evil (which these men, as well as his Lordship, were
very backward to allow and very industrious not to see),
and from that inequality inferred, that there must be such
a state.

This is a short and true account of their contest with
ATHEISTS and DEISTS, so far as the subject of a future
state came in question : in either controversy, that state
is deduced from the moral attributes : only with this
difference. In the dispute with atheists, the demonstra
tion of those attributes is made; in the dispute with
deists, it is alloiced. The final purpose against atheism
is to prove the BEING AND ATTRIBUTES of God; the
final purpose against deism is to prove a FUTURE STATE:
for neither natural nor revealed religion can subsist
without believing that God is, and that he is a RE-
WARDER of them that seek him*. Thus, we see, the
question, in either controversy, being different ; the pre
misses, by which each was to be proved, must needs be
different. The difference is here explained : the pre
misses, in the argument with atheists, were the moral
attributes ; the premisses, in the argument with deists,
the unequal distributi'on of good and evil.

What enemy to religion now could ever hope to see a
calumny either thrive or rise on so unpromising a ground?
or flatter himself with the expectation of an advocate
bold enough to tell the world, that this conduct of the
DIVINES was a CONFEDERACY with ATHEISTS, to de
cry God's providence*, to blot out his attributes of
goodness and justice; to combat his government ; and
to deny Ids very existence? The RIGHT HONOURABLE,
Author does all this : and more; — he expects to be be
lieved. It is true, this is a fine believing age : yet I
hardly think he would have carried his confidence in our

* St. Paul.

credulity

Lett. I.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 113

credulity so far, had he seen his way clear before him. —
His Lordship is always sublime, and therefore often
cloudy ; commonly, at too great a distance to look into
the detail of things, or to enter into their minuteness;
(for which, indeed, he is perpetually felicitating his genius.)
So that, in his general mew of theologic matters, he has
jumbled these two controversies into one; and, in the
confusion, commodiously slipped in one fact for another.
He, all the way, represents divines as making a future
state THE PROOF of God's moral attributes : whereas,
we now7 see, on the very face of the controversy, that
they make the moral attributes A PROOF of a future
state. Let us consider how the dispute stands with
atheists. These men draw their argument against a
God, from the condition of the moral world : the divine
answers, by demonstrating God's being and attributes ;
and, on that demonstration, satisfies the objection. Con
sider how it stands with the deist. Here, God's being
and attributes is a common principle : and on this ground
the divine stands, to deduce a future state from the
unequal distribution of things. But this was to support
his slander of a CONFEDERACY. There was no room
to pretend that God's being was made precarious, by
proving & future state, from his attributes; but could
he get it believed, that divines proved the attributes from
a future state, he would easily rind credit with his kind
readers, for the rest.

Well then, the whole amount of his CHIMERICAL CON
FEDERACY comes to this, That divines and atheists
hold a principle in common ; but in common too with
all the rest of mankind ; namely, that there are irregulari
ties in the distribution of moral good and evil. His
Lordship has been angry with all POLITICAL, as well as
all RELIGIOUS parties in their turns. Suppose he had
taken it into his head to ornament a CRAFTSMAN with
the detection of a political confederacy, between the
WHIGS and JACOBITES, to dethrone KING GEORGE;
because both denied that he reignedjttre divino ; Mother
Osborne would have smiled at this, in spite of all her
gravity; and told him, that the Whigs only urged a
common principle to support their Monarch's title against
indefeasible hereditary right, the nonsensical claim of

VOL, XII. I his

114 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett 1.

his Adversary. And is it not as evident that, in this pre
tended a nti-theolog icai conspiracy, divines employed
the other common principle, to support religion against
atheism and deism ! But whatever his Lordship might
think proper to disguise in this reasoning, there is one
thing the most careless reader will never overlook ; which
is, that, under all this pomp of words and solemnity of
accusation, you see lurking that poor species of a bigot's
calumny, which, from one principle held in common with
an obnoxious party, charges his Adversary, with all the
follies or impieties that have rendered it odious. This
miserable artifice of imposture had now been long hissed
out of learned controversy, when the noble Lord took it
up; and, with true political skill, worked it into a SHAM
PLOT; to make RELIGION distrust its best friends, and
take refuge in the FIRST PHILOSOPHY.

TIXDAL and COLLINS were manly adversaries. They
knew IIOWT to invent, to push, and to pursue an argument.
But what does this noble Writer know — His followers
will tell you. They admire him for his vut and eloquence.
13-it they admire, where you and I see nothing but an
inflamed spirit, and an inflated style. For (to use the
words of a great master* of expression) TRUE ELO
QUENCE \ find to be none hut the serious and hearty
loce of TRUTH : and that, whose mind soever is fully
possessed with a fervent desire to know good things,
and with the dearest CHARITY to infuse the knowledge
of them into others, when such a man would speak,
his words, like so many nimble and airy servitors, trip
about him at command, and in well-ordered files, as
he would wish, fall aptly into their own places.

lie has not yet done with the CHRISTIAN CLERGY.
"What remained behind was to collect together his scat
tered abuse ; and to pour it .all at once on that venerable
body, with an unfeeling hand, and unrelenting heart.

" Nothing more (says lie) will be wanting to answer
", all the ends of artificial theology, than to assume
" that they who minister in holy things are the Omralis,
" the Vizirs, and the Bassas of THIS MIGHTY KING,
" whose commands they publish, interpret, and execute,
" or cause to be executed, rather than his EMBASSA-

* Miltou.

" DORS;

Lett. I.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 115

" DORS : by assuming which latter characters, they seem
" to lessen, over modestly, the dignity of their own order,
" and to raise that of the laity too high: BUT I AM

" ASHAMED TO HAVE SAID SO MUCH OX THIS
" SUBJECT."

He may pretend what he pleases. But whoever it
was that brought him to shame, it certainly was not the
clergy. They are ready to assure him, in the words of
the Poet,

" Let SHAME come when it will, we do not call it."

Besides, after what has passed, I see nothing he has
to be ashamed of; unless it be for stealing the paltry joke
of Embassadors and Plenipotentiaries * from Lord
Shaftsbury :

" Far be it from me (pursues this Right Honourable
" Person) and from every lover of truth and common
" sense, to wish that the race of metaphysicians and
" casuists should increase, or so much as continue. But
" since there are, have been, and will be such men in
" all ages, it is very reasonable to wish that they may
" serve to the same good purpose that the HELOTES, the
" DRUNKEN SLAVES, did at Sparta; and that their DE-
" LIRIUM, instead of imposing on others, and even in-
" fecting many, may be at length LAUGHED OUT of the
" world." What pity is it his Lordship himself had not
tried this expedient (whose efficacy, other Lords of better
temper so kindly recommend and practice), and em
ployed the pleasantry of his wit to laugh the clergy out
of the world, rather than the sublimity of his eloquence
to scold them out of it ! He may rail through all his
figures, at the impertinence of logic, the futility of
metaphysics, the fraud of disputation, and the blas
phemy of divinity : these are the arms of impotent hys
terical women, when they want to have their will. After
the long labours of a HOOKER, a STILLINGFLEET, a
CUDWORT H, a SPENCER, a TILLOTSON, and a CLARKE,
the English clergy may answer his Lordship, in the words
of &e Rosriy, as I think the story goes, to some old
ladies of the Guisian League-, who, when HENRY IV.
had got possession of Paris, were one day very eloquent

* See p. 110, of this Letter.

1 2

Ii6 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. L

}n their invectives against him: " Good ancient Gentle-
ivomen," said this rough old soldier, " spare your breath,
and set your hearts at rest, for OUR MASTER is not a man
to be scratched and scolded out of his KINGDOM." — But
when, between his malice and his magic, he had trans
formed the CLERGY into drunken slaves ; you must not
think he would neglect so good! an occasion of exposing
them to his NOBLE SPARTANS. Indeed the entertain
ment is at hand : and no cost is spared of lavish ex
pression to set out these drunken revels, " The choirs
" of birds (says he) who whistle and sing, or scream at
" one another, or herds of beasts who bleat and low, or
" chatter and roar, at one another, have just as much
" meaning, and communicate it as well — Such is the
" common conversation — Such, too, for the most part,
t( are all the public discourses that are held, and the

" SOLEMN HARANGUES OF THE PULPIT."

After so large a gleaning from his Lordship's abundance,
you will dispense with me from gathering up his looser
flowers of speech; such as, absurdity, effronderie,
knavery, folly, nonsense, delirium, frenzy, lunacy,
downright madness, impiety, profaneness, blasphemy,
and atheism : which, like seed-pearl, are every where
scattered over the embroidery of his eloquence.

Though our indignation at this torrent of ribaldry
makes us prompt enough to ask,

" An quae
" Turpia cerdoni, Volesos Brutumque decebunt?"

yet I am ready, in charity, to suspect that his Lordship
may be abused. Who knows, but just as his Lordship
gave BOWNCE (his friend's dog) the sentiments of his
master *, so his Lordship's Secretary, attending to two

* " The world (says his Lordship to Pope) is as well jit ted for
BOWKCE as for YOU, with respect to physical nature', and with re
spect to MORAL nature, BOWNCE has little to do beyond hearkening
to the STILL WHISPERS, the SECRET SUGGESTIONS, and the SUD-
I»EN INFLUENCES of instinct" This, the reader sees, is intended
for a compliment on the following stanza of his Friend's Universal
Prayer :

" Where I am right, THY GRACE IMPART,

" Still in the right to stay;
" Where I am wrong, O TEACH MY HEART
" To find that better way/'

at

Lett. L] DOLING BROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 117

at once, his Lord and his Lord's PARROT, might unaware
put down to the great man, what indeed belonged to the
favourite : who, however eloquent he might be, yet, we
are told, was no philosopher.

41 The coxcomb bird, so talkative and grave,

" That from his cage cries cuckold, whore, and knave,

" Though many a passenger he rightly call,

" We hold him NO PHILOSOPHER at all."

And I the rather suppose the Secretary to be here in
fault, since his Lordship, in one place, seems to think,
that ribaldry and ill language disgrace the animal im-
ptume., blp.es, the two-legged, uu feathered philosopher*
For, speaking of SPINOZA and HOBBES, he says, Let it
not be said, they are men of DEPRAVED UNDERSTAND
INGS, AND DEPRAVED MORALS; THIS IS TO RAIL, NOT

TO ARGUE- To rait, then, when we should argue, is,
in his Lordship's opinion, unbecoming a philosopher,
unless you will suppose, that these two atheists were
especially favoured, for not being found in bad company,
or taken in the fact, wickedly CONFEDERATING with
d'wints and metaphysicians.

Seriously, as good men may be scandalized to find their
best and ablest pastors accused of blasphemy and />;*0-
fanenesSi it will be right to tell the plain truth : which
is no more than tins, that his Lordship is apt to annex
new ideas to old words ; and not very careful to give us
notice of his handy-work So, in the case before us,
Who would suspect, that teaching a law of right reason ,
common to God and man, and intorcing man's obligation
to imitate God, Mere BLASPHEMY and PROFANENESS?
Yet such the}'- are ; or we must renounce the first
Philosophy*.

So then, as what has ihitherto been piety is become
blasphemy, we need not wonder that his Lordship turns
the garb of old threadbare blasphemy, and gives it the
new gloss of piety.

But now conies a scene indeed. The two REVELA
TIONS and their two FOUNDERS are brought upon the

* " DIVINES HAVE IMPUDENTLY AND WICKEDLY ASSUMED,
THAT THERE IS A LAW OF RIGHT REASON COMMON TO GOD

AND MAN." And again, " To PREACH UP THE OBLIGATION o»

IMITATING GOD, IS IAL8E AND PROFANE."

I 3

li 8 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. I.

stage. And here, his piety pretends so much to the im
pulse of conscience, that you would suspect he thought
himself, like St. Paul, under the malediction -of a woe if
he preached not his new gospel.

Of MOSES, he says, " It is impossible to excuse all
" the puerile, romantic, and absurd circumstances in the
" author of the book of Genesis, which nothing could
" produce but the habit of dealing in trifling traditions,
" and a most profound ignorance. It is impossible to
" read what he has writ on this subject, without feeling
" contempt for him as a philosopher, and horror as a
" divine."

tc The PENTATEUCH -has such evident marks of false-
" hood, as can be objected to no other writings, except to
" professed -Romances, nor even always to them."

" We may laugh at Don Quixote, for reading Ro-
" mances till he believed them to be true histories, and for
" quoting Archbishop Turpin with great solemnity ; but
" when divines speak of the PENTATEUCH as of an au-
" thentic history, and quote Moses as solemnly as he
" did Turpin, are they much less mad than he was?"
Don Quixote is his Lordship's favourite simile; and
comes as often over as the ass and lion in Horner. But
mocking (as the proverb says) is catching. Whoever
attentively considers his Lordship's ESSAYS, will, I dare
say, be of my mind, That the much reading his master
LOCKE, who was deeply engaged with school-divines and
metaphysicians, had the same effect on his Lordship's
temper, in an advanced age, and under a bilious habit,
that the reading books of Chivalry had on the% prudent
gentleman of La Mancha. And, by his own confession,
a man's head is soon turned by complex and abstract
ideas. From henceforth the enchantments of schoolmen
and the gigantic forms of metaphysical divines got entire
possession of his understanding. Consider what you can
make of the following remark, without supposing \\ith me,
that these fancies had made very deep havoc in his brain,
" That THEOLOGY, says he, which pretends to deduce
" the duties of a man from speculations concerning the
<( moral attributes of God, is to be reckoned in the class
" with NATURAL MAGIC." Now, if you seek, I do not
say for the elegance, but for the common propriety of
3 this

Lett. I.] BOLINGBROKFS PHILOSOPHY. 119

this observation, any where out of his Lordship's hurt and
wounded imagination, you will seek for it in vain. Yet,
allow him but his theological magicians, and you see,
their theology could be nothing else than natural magic*

So again — Clarke s hail not force me into atheism ;
no, nor IVoliaston neither. What is this, but Don
Quivote, uj) and down? dreadfully afraid that these
Necromancers would, at last, force him into their EX-
CHANTED CASTLE of a future state-, for so he calls k
in a letter to Lord Bathurst*, where he threatens to de
molish it, as built upon unholy ground, by divines and
atheists in confederacy.

No doubt, every Reader must have observed this un
accountable rage and horror whenever a DIVIXE comes
cross his Lordship's fancy. One would think, they had
served him the same trick the enchanters played Don
Quixote ; that they had run away with his library, and
walled up his study-dobr. Most true it is, that not long
before this immense treasure of thcjirst philosophy was
given to the world, certain of these wicked magicians had
turned it all into fairie-f amours : and the public, on its
first appearance, found nothing in it better proved than
the truth of the old adage, Pro Thesauro, Carbones.
And indeed, if I was not perfectly satisfied that no man
in his senses could mistake the value of this new money,
I should make a scruple of laying so much of it before
him ; especially the following pieces, which have an un
common glow, as if they came hot from the place where
they were minted.

" TtfE WHOLE -SYSTEM OF THE LAW OF MoSES, like

( the whole system of his conduct, WAS FOUXDED ON"

" MURDER/'

; The Jews blended together, at once, in the moral
( character of God, injustice, cruelty, and partiality. — -
rl hoy made him an object of terror, more than of awe
and reverence ; and their religion was a system of the

' RANKEST SUPERSTITION.

The JEWS with more inconsistency, and not less pro-
* fanation, than the Pagans, dressed up the one Supreme

' To discover error in axioms (says he), or in first principles
" grounded on facts, is like breaking of a charm. The ENCII ANTED
u CASTLE, the steepy rock, and the burning Iake9 disappear."

I 4 " Being

120 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett I.

" Being in all the rags of humanity ; which composed a
" kind of motley character, such as foolish superstition
" and mad enthusiasm alone could ascribe to him, and
" such as no man, who believes him an all-perfect Being,
" can hear without horror."

" The Jews give such notions of the Supreme Being
" as no people on earth, but this, would have ascribed, I
" do not say to God, but to the worst of those monsters,
" who are suffered or sent by God, for a short time, to
" punish the iniquity of men."

From MOSES and JUDAISM, his Lordship descends to
PAUL and CHRISTIANITY. Let us see whether he
gives Them better quarter.

" CHRISTIANITY abrogated the law, and confirmed
" the history of Moses ; from the times, at least, when
" St. PAUL undertook, like a true cabalistical architect,
" with the help of type and figure, to raise a new system
" of religion on the old foundations." " The Gospel of
" CHRIST is one thing; the gospel of St. PAUL another."
" He preached a gospel in contradiction to CHRIST'S,
" and directly repugnant to it/'

On this account, I suppose, it was, that he dignifies
'PAUL, with the elegant appellation of the LEATHER-
DRESSING PONTIFF. But the immediate occasion of
giving him this new title of honour, was particularly
happy. His Lordship was on a favourite topic; he was
abusing the first messengers of the Gospel, for their claim
to maintenance, lie was conscious, PAUL came not
within his censure. So that, lest this should give the
apostle too much credit ; he informs the reader, in his
polite way, that he had a trade, and could shift for him
self. For it seems, nothing but downwright starving will
acquit the apostles of theft and extortion, at his Lordship's
tribunal.

" JESUS (in his opinion) had no intention of spreading
" his religion further than amongst the Jews ; but PAUL,
" bred at the £et of Gamaliel, saw further than that
" poor ignorant fisherman Peter/' The sense requires
you should read, that poor ignorant carpenter Jesus :
and so without doubt his Lordship designed his compli
ment. Well, but what did PAUL see further? It was
$his, " That the contempt and aversion in which both

" the

Lett. I.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 121

" the nation and the religion of the Jews were held by
" the rest of mankind, would make it much more easy to
" convert the Gentiles at once to Christianity, than to
" make them Jews first, in order to make them Chris-
" tians afterwards."

For it seems — ct To DISSEMBLE was a fundamental
" principle of apostolical conduct. PAUL practised it.
" We have his own word for this ; and he boasts of it."
His Lordship lets us know, that Paul had assurance
enough to do any thing. For, speaking of the apostle's
famous argument ad modes tiam — Nay, but, O man,
who art thou that replie-st against God ? fyc. He
says, " There is something so IMPUDENT, as well as ab-
" surd in this proceeding, that, common as it is, one can
" see no example of it without surprise."

" CAN he be less than mad, says his Lordship, who
" boasts a revelation superadded to reason, to supply the
" defects of it, and who superadds reason to revelation,
" to supply the defects of this too, at the same time ?
<( This is madness, or there is no such thing incident to
" our nature. And into this kind of madness, ST. PAUL,
" profound in cabaiistical learning, hath fallen." And
yet, as mad as it is, all Governments have matched it,
when they superadded civil laws, to natural conscience
or religion, to supply the dejects of it ; and super-
added natural conscience or religion to civil laws, to sup
ply the dejects of those too, at the same time. But
more of this in its place.

" St. PAUL carried into the apostleship a great deal
" of that ASSUMING AIR, which is apt to accompany
" much learning, or the opinion of it — a great profu-
(i sion of words, and of involved, and unconnected dis-
" course, even on those subjects which required to be most
1 clearly and distinctly developed. — He was a loose pa-
' raphraser, a cabaiistical commentator, as much, at
" least, as any ancient or modern rabbin." — " St. PAUL'S
" system of religion, is an intricate and dark system,
" with, here and there, an intelligible phrase, that
" casts no light on the rest, but is rather lost in the
" gloom of the whole" — " Having said so much of the
•" intelligibility of Paul's gospel, TRUTH authorises me
" to add, that where it is intelligible, it is often ABSURD, or

122 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. I.

" PROFANE, or TRIFLING." — " PAUL taught predesti-
" nation and UNLIMITED PASSIVE OBEDIENCE: the
" one absurd, the other both absurd and IMPIOUS,"

Was it allowable to laugh, amidst all these horrors,
what mortal could forbear? Unlimited passive obedience,
quoth he ! The noble Lord had been so long accustom
ed to the cant of his faction, which made St. Paul the
preacher of I cannot tell what nonsense under that name,
that he seems now in good earnest to believe he was so.
A just judgment on the politician ; to come at last to give
credit to his own flams. However, in this instance, at
least, one would hope St. Paul might have been spared,
if it were only for old acquaintance sake ; and the hard
service they had put the LEATHER-DRESSING PONTIFF
upon. But it is bad trusting, we see, to the gratitude of
statesmen. Happy for us, PAUL has yet an able defen
der: who will never be wanting in what he owes to
gratitude and honour. I only take the liberty to drop a
hint. It is wrell known to those who were in the secret of
his Lordship's passions and his party, that Clarke and
JVollaston found the worse treatment for being the fa
vourite philosophers of Q. C. Who knows, whether
St. Paul fared the better for being patronized by his
learned friend ?

" CHRISTIANITY (says his Lordship) became FANA-
" TICISM in the FIRST professors of it. Men corrupted
" it by ARTIFICIAL TIIEOLOGV. And some will be apt
" to think, that the first of these men was PAUL — Divines
" will be FURLOUS to hear SUCH LANGUAGE." Alas!
No. He guessed ill of the mood in which his works
were to find them. They laugh at his vanity ; and pity
the far i/ that inspired such language. Indeed he gives
them ample exercise for all their pity : for, having done
with PAUL, he now directs the poison of his tongue against
JESUS CHRIST himself.

" The truth is, CHRISTIANITY preserved, in many
" respects, a strong tang of the spirit of Judaism. The
" Supreme Being took a milder appearance; his favour
" was confined no longer to one people. The MESSIAH
" came and redeemed fallen Man. CHRISTIAN TJIEO-
" LOGY discovers in this mysterious proceeding the love
" of God to Man : his infinite justice and goodness.

" BUT

Lett. I. j BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 123

" BUT REASON will discover the fantastical, confused,
" and inconsistent notions of Jewish theology, latent in
" it; and applied to another system of religion. .This
" love zcill appear partiality ; this justice will appear
" injustice', this goodness will appear cruelly. On
" the whole, the moral character imputed to the Supreme
" Being by Christian theology, differs .little from that im-
" puted to him by the Jewish. The difference is rather
" apparent than real/'

" The scene of Christianity has been ALWAYS a
" scene of dissention, of hatred, of persecution, and of

" BLOOD."

Speaking of CHRIST'S Sermon on the Mount) he
says — " Some [of the precepts] are directed to the Jews
" only, and some more immediately to the disciples of
" Christ. The second sort seem fit enough for a reli-
" gious sect-, but are by no means practicable in the
" general society of mankind. Considered as general
" duties they are impracticable, inconsistent with

' NATURAL INSTINCT, US Well US LAV/, and QUITE
" DESTRUCTIVE OF SOCIETY."

" The CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY has derived from the
" Jewish, a profane licence, which makes men blas-
" pheme without knowing they blaspheme, and makes
•" their very devotion impious."

" 1 would sooner be reputed, nay I would sooner be,
" a Pagan than a Christian, or an Atheist than a Theist,
" if to be one or the other it was necessary to believe
" such ABSURDITIES as these; which, however disguised
' and softened by a certain cant of expression, are
" /directly PROFANE; and indirectly, or by consequence
" at least, blasphemous."

' ALL THE BEDLAMS OF THE WORLD cannot match

*' the absurdities that have been propagated by Christians,

i whether heretics or orthodox, concerning the making

" and governing of the world by the ministration of

' inferior Beings : Beings not eternal, but produced

" in time by emanation, or some other inconceivable

€t manner of generation"

" We cannot believe the SCRIPTURES to be God's
* word, though we know the physical and moral system
' are his work, while we find in them such repugnancies

" to

124 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. I.

f to the nature of an all-perfect Being ; not mysteries,
" but absurdities; not things incomprehensible, but things
" that imply manifestly contradiction with his nature."

In a word, he tells us, that " THE RELIGION OF
" NATURE HAS BEEN TURNED ALMOST INTO BLAS-
" PIIEMY BY REVELATION." " To believe (says he)
" that Jesus was the Messiah, is said by some [meaning
" his Master Locke] to be the unum necessarium of
*' FAITH; but, TO OBSERVE THE LAW OF NATURE, is

" THE UNUM NECESSARIUM OF DUTY."

But now having exposed MOSES, CHRIST, and PAUL;
having decried the falsehood of the TWO REVELATIONS,
and ridiculed the absurdity of sacred SCRIPTURE; he
shews us, in mere charity, after the example of the WISE
ALPHONSUS, how either system might have been mended,
had his Lordship been consulted while, like the WISE
ALPHONSUS, he believes just as much of God's word, as
the other did of his works.

First, he hints, how the LAW might have been better
planned. " God purchased the obedience of the Jewish
" people by a mercenary bargain. It was ill kept on
61 their part. And the Lawr, with all its sanctions, wras
" continually violated ; sometimes rejected ; and had, in
" no decree, a force sufficient to maintain itself in ob-
*c servation and reverence. Now, one of the most con-
<c ceivable perfections of a law is, that it be made with
" such a foresight of all possible accidents, and with such
lf provisions for the due execution of it, in all cases, that
" the law may be effectual to govern and direct these
" accidents, instead of lying at the mercy of them. — •
" Another the most conceivable perfection of a law con-
" sists in the clearness and precision of its terms. — These
" will be found, no doubt, and ought to be expected,
" when God is the legislator."

lie next shews us, how he could have improved the
GOSPEL, had he been of God's privy-counsel. " Had
" the doctrine of future rewards and punishments been
" taught by CHRISTIANITY in terms more general and
" less descriptive y had the punishments been repre-
" sented, for instance, like the rewards, to be, simply,
" such as eye never saw, nor ear heard, nor the heart
" of man could conceive, it might have been maintained

" m

Lett I.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 125

" in credit, and had an universal and real influence
*' perhaps, to the great advantage of religion."

An inattentive reader may be surprised perhaps, at
this wantonness of his Lordship's pen, That when he had
given it as his fixed decree, that all which the world hath
hitherto called religion, is a public mischief, and a future
state, an absurd fable ; he should with great formality
deliver in a plan which would have given credit and real
efficacy to nonsense and impiety. But we must consider,
lie had been so long playing the PHILOSOPHER, that he
had reason to apprehend we might forget the other part
of his sublime character, the LEGISLATOR. He therefore
deemed it expedient to give us a slight cast of his office,
in rectifying the blunders of MOSES and JESUS CHRIST.

With regard to MOSES and his Law, I have so much
to say to his Lordship, that I shall reserve it for an after-
reckoning. The other is but a small matter, and may
be settled here.

I suspect then, our LEGISLATOR, in this remark con
cerning the manner in which JESUS revealed a future
state, did not sufficiently attend either to the nature of
the human mind, or to the genius of the Gospel. He
would have, we see, the account of 'future punishments
as general, and as little descriptive, as that of future
rewards. He seems to think the latter well managed,
and with propriety : which yet he measures on the ima
ginary impropriety of the other : he appears to have no
idea of any positive excellency it has in itself. I shall
endeavour therefore to explain why this method of re-
presenting future rewards was right: by which it will
appear, that the other, of representing future punish
ments, was by no means wrong.

To grow particular and descriptive, whether of future
rewards, or future punishments, the speaker must borrow
his images from material and corporeal things ; because
the hearer has no faculties of sensation proper to com
prehend ideas taken from things spiritual. Now when
a follower of Christ is so far advanced as to have his faith
work by hope, his sentiments grow refined, his ideas
purify, and he is rising apace towards that perfection
which the Gospel encourages him to aspire after. But
while fear of punishment chiefly operates upon him, he

is6 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. I.

is yet in the lowest state of probation; his imagination
is gross, and his appetites sensual. Is it not evident, then,
that a descriptive heaven of delights would ^e ill suited
to that purity and elevation of mind, solely fixed by hope,
on happiness; and as evident, that & general undefined
denunciation of hell would not have force enough to make
the necessary impression on a sensual fancy agitated by
fear ? Let not his Lordship's admirers, therefore, be
offended, if we believe that, in this point, the Author of
our salvation went at least one step beyond their master,
in true politics.

At length, for a concluding stroke, his Lordship comes
from vilifying BOTH RELIGIONS, and their FOUNDERS, to
rail against the GOD of both Religions. And with this
I shall close the horrid scene.

" IF \VE BELIEVE IN MOSES, AND HIS GoD, WE
" CANNOT BELIEVE IN THAT GOD WHOM OUR REA-
" SON SHEWS US."

" CAN ANY MAN PRESUME TO SAY, THAT THE GOD
" OF MOSES, OR THE GOD OF 1JAUL, IS THE TRUE

" GOD? The God of . MOSES is partial, unjust, and
" cruel ; delights in blood, commands assassinations,
" massacres, and even exterminations of people. The
" God of PAUL elects some of his creatures to salvation,
" and predestinates others to destruction, even in the
" womb of their mothers. And, indeed, if there was not
<c a Being INFINITELY MORE PERFECT than these, there
" would be no God at all, nor any true Religion in the
" world/'

Who, that hears this dreadful language, without know
ing from what quarter it comes, but will straight call to
mind the words of the satirist p

" Not Dante, dreaming all th' infernal state,
" Beheld such scenes of envy, sin, and hate."
But when we understand them to be the ejaculations of
this noble philosopher, the confessor of truth, the advo
cate of virtue, and the restorer of banished nature; em
ployed, as he himself tells us, or rather, set apart, TO

PLEAD THE CAUSE OF GOD HIMSELF AGAINST DIVINES
AND ATHEISTS IN CONFEDERACY ; when WC Consider,

I say, all this, What are we to think, but that they are
the pious breathings of an over-heated zeal : and though

expressed

Lett. I.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 127

expressed in no consecrated terms (indeed such as had
been much worn in the service of the CRAFTSMAN) yet
when new-set in his Lordship's immortal panoply of the
FIRST PHILOSOPHY, they may now prove as useful, to
advance the fear of God, as before, to promote the
honour oj the king.

It is in HATE as in LOVE ; hard to distinguish the
divine from the carnal species ; or rather to separate the
different ebullitions of what is but one and the same
species. Hence it is, that the melting strains of the
Mystic, the Methodist, and the Moravian, so often smell
of the STEWS ; and hence, by parity of reason, the thun
der of his Lordship's eloquence may naturally .re-echo, as
it were, from BILLINGSGATE.

But these things make you serious : and you ask,
" Who, that hath ever heard Lord Bolingbroke's story,
would have suspected, that his GOD and his COUNTRY
lay so near his heart ? And yet his political and phi
losophic writings, say you, are full of lamentations'.,
where, like another Jeremy, he bewails the dishonours
which wicked PRIESTS, and wicked POLITICIANS, have
brought upon the Church and State : Nay, in his extreme
fondness for these his favourite objects, he suffers him
self to be alarmed with something less than panic terrors.
He is afraid the Whigs will bring in the Pretender ; and
apprehends, the English clergy have made large steps
towards atheism^

I know what you drive at. You would insinuate, that
those who have nothing to fear, and a great deal to hope
from Religion, are not wont to give it up so easily. For
HOPE encourages men to search into the grounds of what
Religion promises ; though FEAR often hinders them from
giving proper attention to what it threatens. You are
ready to say to his Lordship,

" Si VIRTUTIS eras avidus, RECTique BONique

" Tarn sitiens, quid RELIGIO tibi sancta nocebat?
' Aspera quippe nimis visa est? Asperrima certe

" GAUDENTI VITIIS, sed non virtutis amanti."

Card. Polig.

You are for applying to his right honourable person, the
old trite aphorism, That wicked principles spring out
of a wicked life, But what says another noble peer to

this?

128 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett t

this ? " Fain would the bigot, in consequence of his
" moral maxims, and political establishments, con-
<e found licentiousness in morals with liberty of thought,
" and make the libertine, who has the LEAST MASTERY
" OF HIMSELF, resemble his direct opposite *."

It may be so, you will say. But Lord Bolingbroke,
sure, could never object to the imputation which bad
morals cast upon a teacher of truth : He, who sees it
so clearly, and presses it so charitably, upon the whole
body of the Christian clergy. " How" (says his Lord
ship) " can the CLERGY of your church, or of ours,
" pretend that they contribute now, or EVER DID CON-
" TRIBUTE, to the reformation of mankind ? No age
" can be pointed out, wherein ALL THE VICES, that
" Tully imputes to most of the Heathen philosophers,
" did not prevail AMONGST MOST of the Christian divines
" with great circumstances of aggravation. They have
<c not only ALL THE VICES incident to human nature in
" common with other men, but they have had the pecu-
" liar vices of their order. I WILL SAY BOLDLY, they
" are, in general, much fitter to hinder, by their EXAM-
" PLE, than to promote by their DOCTRINE, the advance-
" ment of Religion, natural or revealed."

We have, it is true, been favoured with very ample
accounts of the immoral conduct both of ancient philoso
phers and modern churchmen ; and these, even by some
of the more charitable of their o^n respective bodies. —
FREETHINKERS have been bashful, and more on the re
serve : nay, they might have been thought saints, for any
thing their modesty would have suffered, had it not been
for the Confessions of one of them, the famous CARDAN;
who, like another St. Austin, seems sworn to leave no
thing behind him in -the ink-horn. The account he gives
of himself deserves transcribing. — " In diem vi/entem,
" nugacern, religionis contemptorem, illatae injurise rne-
" tnoretn, invidum, tristem, insidiatorem, proditorem,
" suorurn osorem, turpi libidini deditum, solitarium,
" inamoenum, austerum, obsrrrr.um, lascivum, tnaledi-
" cum, varium, ancipitem, impurum, calumniatoremf,"
t$c. This was fair dealing : and he, who was so free
with himself, might be excused if he spared nobody else.

* ChyrQcteristks, Vol. iii, Misc, 5, Chap, 3. | De lit a sua.

But

Lett. I.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 129

But men do not use to be wanton on so nice a subject;
and Freethinkers have generally more MASTERY OF
THEMSELVES, says the noble Author of the Character
istics : whenever therefore we see it done, we. must
conclude it to be done for some good purpose; such as,
emulation of the Christian confessors ; who, to display
the powers of grace, did not scruple to tell the world,
with great simplicity, what they were by nature : and
thus Cardan, to shew us that the FIRST PHILOSOPHY is
as efficacious in all great changes, has fairly told us how
well befriended he had been by his stars. However, let
his design, in presenting us with this picture of his amiable
turn of mind, be what it would, we are much beholden
to him for setting the example. Though, like all. other
good examples, it may possibly end where it set out ; and
the Jirst philosophy wait with patience for some less in
commodious way of recommending itself. And indeed,
while infidelity, which is the cure, is unjustly supposed
the cause of these peccadillos, we need not wonder our
philosophers should soon think themselves at liberty, and
be as soon disposed, to turn their view from their own
morals to those of the clergy : and affirm boldly, with his
Lordship, that the order in general is much jitter to
hinder by their EXAMPLE, than to promote by their
•DOCTRINE, the advancement of religion.

What shall we say then ? May it not be better to
leave the examples of both to shift for themselves ; and
to consider only their doctrines ? I think it would; and
will therefore proceed from his Lordship's TEMPER, to
his PRINCIPLES. But this must be the subject of another
Letter. — I am, &c.

LETTER II.

IT has been observed, that uncommon blessings,
whether civil or religious, seldom happen till hope grows
desperate, and long expectation has wearied out itself in
vain. Then it is the crisis approaches, the superior Genius

VOL. XII. K bestirs

13* A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

bestirs himself, and the admiring world is taken in by
surprise.

— —Quod optanti Diviim, promittere nemo
Auderet, volvenda dies en ! attulit ultro.
Never was this observation so \veli verified : for never
was mankind in so deplorable a way as when his Lord-
^hip arrived from — what other system is not yet dis
covered ; though his tuneful Friend was very positive he
belonged not to this : insomuch, that when the last Comet
appeared, and came pretty near the Earth, he used to tell
his acquaintance, he should not be surprised if in the
event it proved, that it was sent only to convey his Lord
ship home again ; just as a stage-coach stops at your
door to take up a passenger. Be this as it will : bad
indeed was our condition when Lord BOLINGBROKE
arrived, — what shall I say, to be a light to those who1
sat in darkness? No, this is the work of meaner
missionaries > but, to RESTORE MANKIND TO THEIR
SENSES.

For his Lordship, in his account of the general DELI
RIUM which had seized the clergy, had given us but a
specimen of our condition: the MADNESS was UNI
VERSAL. Insomuch, that (as he well expresses it) ALL
THE BEDLAMS OF THE WORLD were not sufficient for
these things. And indeed how should they! For, to
confess the truth, these visions of what he calls an over
heated imagination, such as, belief in the moral attri*
bates of God, the immortality of the soul, a particular
providence, and a future state, had infected all times
and places.

ALL EUROPE (says his Lordship) GREW DELIRIOUS.

Christianity was left to shift for itself in the midst of a

"FRANTIC WORLD. And again, " OUR WORLD seems

4i to be, in many respects, THE BEDLAM OF EVERY

" OTHER SYSTEM OF INTELLIGENT CREATURES; and,

14 with this unlucky circumstance, that they who are
" most mad govern, in things of the greatest moment,
" them who are least so." By what is here dropt in the
concluding words, you understand why his Lordship chose
to make the clergy lead up the brawls in this mad dance :
and the leather-dressing Pontiff himself to preside as
Master of the Revels,

But

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 131

But to find all mankind mad, is perhaps more than
you expected. What then? Is the madness less real
for being universal ? — I think not : but surely, more des
perate. Tell us, therefore, what strange disaster occa
sioned this general insanity. Was it some evil disposition
of the stars ? — So, indeed, it is reported *, The WORLJ^
it seems, like the men of Abdtrcr\, had seen a tragedy
in a very hot day : which left so strong an impression on
their fancies, that they all thought themselves concerned
in the subject. Some ran about from country to country,
to tell their story ; and the rest have been ever since re
hearsing and celebrating those affecting scenes, at home !
till LORD BOLING BROKE, like another HIPPOCRATES,
came to their relief: and, having first well physicked
them of their faith and their fancies, brought them to
themselves, by applying to their hurt imaginations, the
sovereign restorative of his FIRST PHILOSOPHY. Of
which, I am now, as I promised, to give you some
account.

But to see this extraordinary man in a just light, it will
be proper to shew what Man was before him. A RELI
GIOUS ANIMAL he is allowed to be, on all hands: and,
till the coming of this FIRST PHILOSOPHY, Religion was
understood to rise on that wide basis, on which the J ana-
tical knave, PAUL, had the art to place it; that " He
" who cometh to God must believe that he is : and that
1 he is a REV/ARDER of them who diligently seek him J/'
For, men who supposed the infinite goodness and justice
of God to be as demonstrable as his infinite power and
wisdom, could not but conclude from his moral attri
butes, that he REWARDED; as well as from his natural
attributes, that he CREATED.

On the more complex notion, therefore, of a MORAL
GOVERNOR, all mankind supposed RELIGION to arise;
while NATURALISM, the ape of religion, wras seen to
spring from the simpler notion of a PHYSICAL PRESER
VER : which, however, they were ready to distinguish, on
the other hand, from the unnaturalism (if one may so
call it) of ranker atheism.'

* Vid. D. N. J. C. geaeseos thema, inter Cardani opera.
t See Lucian, de con&cr. Hist. J Heb. xi. 6'.

K 2 RELIGION,

132 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

RELIGION, therefore, stands, and must, I think, for
ever stand, on those two immovable principles, of PRE
SERVER and HE WARDER, in conjunction.

The length or shortness of human existence was not
primarily in the idea of Religion, not even in the com
plete idea of it, as delivered in St. PAUL'S general defini
tion. " The Religionist," says he, " must believe that
" God eV, and that he rewards."

But when it came to be seen, that he was not always a
re-warder here, men concluded this life not to be the
whole of their existence. And thus a FUTURE STATE
was brought into Religion; and from thenceforth became
a necessary part of it.

To explain my meaning, if so clear a thing needs fur
ther explanation. GOD, under the physical idea of Pre
server and Creator, appears uniform, regular, and instant
to his creatures : Under the moral idea of Rewardcr
and Governor, he seems frequently to be withdrawn
from his servants. For though, in the moral dispensa
tions of things here, good and evil be often proportioned
to desert; yet often, too, they are otherwise adjusted.
The ancient religionist, therefore, confiding in his demon
stration of the moral as well as the natural attributes of
the Deity, concluded, That the present was not the only
state ordained for man ; but that in some other life these
irregularities would be set right. Hence a FUTURE STATE
became in all ages and countries (except one, where the
moral administration of Providence was different) insepa
rable from, and essential to, the various Religions of man
kind Even the mere vulgar, who did not reach the force
of this demonstration, yet, seeing the marks of moral
government, amidst the frequent interruptions of it, em
braced the doctrine of a future state as confidently as
the learned. For plain Nature had instructed them to
reason thus, — If all were regular, nothing needed to be
set right : and if all were irregular, there was no one to
set them right.

Such was the ANTIENT RELIGION OF NATURE : to
which, modern divines have generally agreed to give the
name of THEISM, when professed by those who never
heard of Revelation ; and the name of DEISM, when pro
fessed by those who would never give credit to it.

5 In

Lett. II.] BOLING BROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 133

In this state our noble Philosopher found the religious
world ; or, more properly, this was the language he heard
re-echoed from one end of the globe to the other; But it
was a language, he tells us, he did not understand. It
was to his ears, like the choirs of birds, who 'whistle
and sing, or scream, at one another ; or the herds of
beasts, who bleat and low, or chatter and roar, at one
another. He rejects it, therefore, in the lump, as the
inarticulate din of ENTHUSIASM and ABSURDITY; the
brutal issue of pride and ignorance ; and so, but with
much greater of his own, erects the FIRST PHILOSOPHY
on its ruins.

1. He permits us to believe, that an intelligent Cause
made the world ; and, by his physical and general laws
still governs it : but not by moral or particular.

2. He bids us to understand, that this world was no
more made for man, than for every animal besides : nor
man made for any other world, nor consequently (as
divines have dreamt) for happiness.

3. That, by the arbitrary constitution of things in
the human system (which may have a contrary disposition
in other systems) virtue promotes happiness, and vice
brings on misery.

4. That THIS CONSTITUTION, together with the co-
activity of CIVIL LAWS, contain all the rewards and
punishments attendant on virtue and on vice.

5. That prayer, supplication, and every other office of
religion in use amongst men, to implore good, and to
deprecate evil, are foolish and fanatical : for that ail re
ligious duty is comprised in submission to the esta
blished order of things.

He sums up his whole system in these words : — " A
" self-existent Being the first cause of all things, infinitely

c POWERFUL and infinitely WISE, is the God of natural
" theology. And the whole system of Natural Religion

' rests on it, and requires NO BROADER FOUNDATION."
That is, it is enough for him who comet h to this new
religion, to believe that God is ; and not that he is a
REWARDER of them who seek him. And again, " When

1 men have proved the existence of an all-perfect Being,
<c the Creator and Governor of the Universe, and de-

* monstrated his infinite POWER and WISDOM, from his

K 3 " works,

134 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

* works, when they have done this, THEY HAVE DONE
" ALL; this includes the whole of natural theology,
" and serves abundantly to all 'the ends of natural

4 religion.

What these ends of natural religion are, he tells us
very plainly. They are, to fit us for our station here,
and to supply our real wants In it. — " In like manner
[that is, as he expresses it, for the necessary uses of
human life and no more] " the knowledge of the
" Creator is on many accounts necessary to such a crea-
" ture as man : and therefore we are able to arrive, by
' a proper exercise of our mental faculties, from the
" knowledge of God's works, to a knowledge of his
" EXISTENCE, and of that infinite POWER and WISDOM
" which are demonstrated to us in them. OUR KNOW-

" LEDGE CONCERNING GOD GOES NO FURTHER."

Now though we should be so complaisant to these
principles as not to call them ATHEISTIC, yet I arn
afraid the professor of them, whoever he be, must be
content with no better a name. For though the principles
may be called NATURALISM, yet if Scripture has defined
an ATHEIST right, to be one who HAS xo HOPE, and is
WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD*, our Professor of
Naturalism comes within the description. For though
he acknowledges the being of a God, yet as he is without
a God in the world, that is, a Being who presides over
it, as the moral Governor of it, which is the foundation
on uhich all religion stands, religionists will think of no
other title for him. And surely he will be properly de
fined. For though the abstract term atheism carries, as
its principal idea, a relation to God's BE ING ; yet, atheist,
in the concrete, seems to have its chief relation to God's
GOVERNMENT. This is not observed for any kind of
consequence it is to religion, in what class the Public
shall be pleased to rank his Lordship : but merely to set
in a true light the honourable Person's ingenuity, in
assuming the character of an Advocate for Religion,
at the very time he is labouring to root it out of human
society.

Old NATURALISM, thus travestied in the garb of new
religion, his Lordship bestows, as his last and most pre-
* Ephes. ii. 12.

cious

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 135

cious legacy, on his own dear country : if you will believe
him, the only reformed religion that can be called pure,
and the only revealed religion that has the mark of truth.
What the world hath hitherto called by those names,
being, as he assures us, an evil in itself; and mischievous
to man in its essential constitution. And he proves it,
as they say, in mood and figure. — " To keep up the
" sense of it [/. e. of religion] in the minds of men,
" there seem to be but two ways. To STRIKE THE
" SENSES frequently, by public and solemn acts of re-
" ligious worship; and to HEAT THE BRAIN by notions
" of an inward operation of the Spirit, and of a sort of
" mystical devotion, independent of outward forms, and
" even INCONSISTENT with them. One of these leads
" to SUPERSTITION, the other to ENTHUSIASM. Both
" are silly — Superstition is folly : enthusiasm is madness*
" It is good to be on our guard against both."

Without doubt. But how shall it be done? Religion
is an evil in itself, and so admits of no qualification. It
necessarily requires, as his Lordship tells us, on man's
part, public acts of worship; and on God's, the private
operation of the Spirit : But these lead to superstition and
enthusiasm; that is, to Jolly and madness; to the de
pravation, nay to the destruction of our reasonable na
ture. This is not all : these necessary weans are not
only hurtful, but impracticable. You could not use them,
was you foolish or mad enough to venture on them ; for
they are, he says, INCONSISTENT, and destroy one another.
What then is to be done? To be upon our guard \ to
keep Religion at arms length, till his Lordship brings up
his reserve of Naturalism, to our relief. Let this be
our shield of brass. LTnder this we may repose in peace,
undisturbed by any frightful dreams of Hell and the
Devil.

This, Sir, is the enchiridion of his Lordship's FIRST
PHILOSOPHY. How simple, you will say, how close,
how round, how full, is this new dispensation ! A dis
pensation of religion shall we call it ? No matter. The
times are ripe for it under any name. Yet I can hardly
agree to. those fancies, I told you of, which had possessed
his poetical Friend ; who, misled perhaps by that obscure
hint, that our world was only the Bedlam of every

K 4 ~ other

136 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

other system of intelligent creatures, supposed, in
good earnest, his Philosopher and Guide to be sent
down from some superior orb, as physician to the hospi
tal. Without question, he was made for the age, and the
age for him. And they may well congratulate one an
other on their happy meeting. Yet, if we must be doctri-
nated by a poet (and, now-a-days, Milton is much oitener
quoted by Divines, than Hooker), I should be rather dis
posed to give credit to the man who told me, that he
heard the evil Genius of Britain address his Lordship, on
his rirbt setting out, in strains like these,

" Be as a planetary plague, when Jove

Will o'er some bigh-vic'd city hang his poison

" In the -sick air/' - - -

But to return to Lis system. It rises on these four
principles :

First, That we have no adequate ideas of the MORAL
ATTRIBUTES of God, his goodness and Injustice, as we
have of his NATURAL, to wit, his power and his wisdom.

'Secondly, That a FUTURE STATE is a fable.

Thirdly, That the JEWISH and the CHRISTIAN
Revelations are false. And,

Fourthly, That REVELATION ITSELF is impossible.

Indulge me with a few remarks on his Lordship's
management, under each of these heads.

i. Divines, in their proof of the moral attributes,
having of late much' insisted on the arguments a priori,
as they are called-, his Lordship suspected, and what he
suspects of ill he always takes for granted, that these at
tributes could not be proved a posteriori, or from God's
works', the way by which, he owns, his natural attri
butes may be demonstrated. So that having pronounced
the arguments a priori to be jargon, nonsense, impiety
and blasphemy ; the moral attributes of God are iairly
erased at once out of the intellectual system. And he
had no farther trouble on this head than to decorate
CLARKE, who was chiefly conversant in the reasoning
a pricn, with variety of abusive names. As to the
reasoning itself, our great man's respect for that is so pro
found and ?o distant, that I defy any one, unacquainted
with metaphysical arguments, even to guess what kind
of things they are for which the famous minister of St.

James's

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 137

James's is so severely handled. For while the divine
suffers, the reasoner, as we say, always escapes. Now
indeed you see him seized upon, and ready, as you would
think, to be cut up alive, and immolated to the first
philosophy', when ajit of railing shakes his Lordship;
and the storm tails upon the whole body of modern school-
men : and so the Doctor escapes for that time. He is
again laid hold on, and every thing ready for execution ;
when a fit of learning comes upon his Lordship;
and Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, and the whole band
ot ancient metaphysicians, pass in review, and each re
ceives a lash as he passes : and so the Doctor escapes for
the second time. After all these victories without blood
shed, his Lordship, as is fitting, takes his ease, intent only
on his future triumphs : in the mean time, amidst such
self-applause, his ESSAYS end, and the subtile Doctor
remains unhurt.

But when need requires, I would have you know, that
nothing can keep him from his logic. Marry, then, on
some great occasion indeed, as when the novelty of the
subject invites him, or the true state of it is little, under
stood, you shall have no reason to complain of brevity :
then you shall see him employ one half of his volumes to
prove the corruptions of the CHURCH OF ROME, and near
another half, to expose the jargon of the SCHOOLMEX.

2. We come to the second point, the doctrine of a
FUTURE STATE ; which being supported by the great
moral argument of " the unequal distribution of good
and evil amongst men/' his Lordship is as large in con
futing this, as he was sparing in his answer to the metaphy
sical proofs of the moral attributes.

He first endeavours to shew the argument to be found
ed on a mistaken fact, and that there is no such unequal
distribution : he is almost tempted to tell you, that every
thiricr is exactly regular and in order. But this is a para
dox too unmanageable even for his Lordship. He there
fore cornes dovvn somewhat lower; and appears to be to
lerably contented, if you will but take his word that the
inequality is not near so great as p id pit-ded aimers
would ,r;;)ke you believe : that the disorders which follow
the abuse of man's free-will are not to be placed to the
account bf that dispensation, which our ignorance and

presumption

1.3* A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

presumption make us fancy God is obliged to alter and
reform. However, equal or unequal, his capital maxim
clears up all. WHATSOEVER is, is RIGHT : and there
fore the argument of these confederated Divines, which
goes upon a supposed WRONG, is absurd and blasphe
mous. Whatever answer this reasoning may deserve, I
believe no man who understands the world will expect that
a well-bred man should give it.

But I cannot omit, on this occasion, to do justice to
his poetical Friend ; by shewing the difference between
Mr. POPE'S philosophy and his Lordship's. They both
employ the maxim of Whatever is, is right. But to
know, with what propriety and judgment, we must con
sider against whom they write. Mr. Pope's Essay on
Man is a real vindication of Providence against liber
tines undatheifts; who quarrel with the present con
stitution of things, and deny a future state. To these he
answers, that whatever is, is right : and the reason
he gives, is, that we see only a part of the moral
system, and not the whole] therefore these irregulari
ties serving to great purposes, such as the fuller manifes
tation of God's goodness and justice, they are right.
Lord Bolingbroke's Essays are a pretended vindication
of Providence against an imaginary confederacy be-
tu'een divines and atheists ; who use a common principle,
namely, the inequalities in God's moral government
here, for different ends and purposes ; the one to esta
blish & future state^ the other to discredit the being of
tt God. His Lordship, who opposes their different con
clusions, endeavours to overthrow their common principle,
by his friend's maxim, that whatever is, is right ; not
because the present state of our moral world (which is
part only of a more general system) is necessary for the
greater perfection of the whole, but because our moral
world is an entire system of itself. His Lordship applies
the maxim no better than he understands it. Mr. Pope
urges it against atheists and libertines, who say the con
stitution of things is faulty : so that the reply, whatever
£?, is right, is pertinent. His Lordship directs it against
divines, who say, indeed, that this constitution is imper
fect, if considered separately, because it is a part only of
a whole, but are as iar as his Lordship from calling it

faulty :

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 139

faulty : therefore the reply, whatever is, is right, is
impertinent In a word, the Poet directs it against atheists
and libertines, in support of Religion properly so called;
the Philosopher, against divines, in support of Religion
improperly so called, namely, NATURALISM: and the
success is answerable. Mr. Pope's argument is manly,
systematical, and convincing. Lord Boiingbroke's, con
fused, prevaricating/ and inconsistent. Thus, few Lord
ship will have nothing irregular or amiss in the moral
world ; for this is impiety, the very bond of that confede
racy sealed between divines and atheists. In vain you
tell him of a future state, to vindicate the providence of
God ; this is visionary nonsense. But if you talk of
physical evil, he has his answer ready, This world is
but one wheel of a vast machine. You will ask, then,
why Pope's solution is not to be admitted, who says the
same of moral evil which his Lordship does of physical ?
For a plain reason ; his Lordship can allow our physical
system to be only a part, without any hazard of hisjirst
philosophy. But when once you allow as much to the
moral, you are in danger of bringing in religion.

But why, you will ask again, would his Lordship thus
run himself a-ground ; sometimes by discrediting his
reasoning with a silly paradox ; sometimes by betraying
it with an unwilling confession ; and, at best, by only
giving it the poor support of a misunderstood and mis
applied maxim ; when his great and noble principle of

NO MORAL ATTRIBUTES dissolves the CONFEDERACY at

once. For if we have no ideas of God's moral attributes,
the issue of our reasoning on his ways will be the same as
if he had none. And if he has none, they need not, sure,
be vindicated : which is the sole purpose of his reasoning
on the state of the moral world. All I can say to this
is, that his Lordship appears to have been so harassed
with this phantom of a FUTURE STATE, that no charm,
no security, was to be neglected, that could contribute to
his ease or protection. Hence it is he will depend on
neither of his arguments, of— no inequality, m—but a
little : and therefore, to make all sure, casts about for a
third, of more acknowledged efficacy.

This he finds in the SOUL'S MATERIALITY. From
whence, he contrives to persuade himself that it can be

no

140 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II

no substance (which he calls 'pneumatical madness)
but a mere quality of body, produced by the configura
tion of its parts, and perishing with that disposition of
them. I say, he contrives to persuade himself \ and I
mean no more. Had his point been to persuade his
reader^ we must suppose he would, have ventured,, at
least, to confute the arguments of CLARKE and BAXTER :
tiho, on the principles of the Newtonian philosophy, have?
demonstrated that the soul is a substance, distinct from
the body, and different from matter. Instead of this, he
Bies to his usual consolation, ABUSE. He calls them
impious and blasphemers, 'for presuming to limit the
Omnipotent : when the highest of their presumption
amounts but to this, the supposing God can exert no
power , which implies a contradiction ; since this ima
ginary power is indeed impotency. Nay, he would wil
lingly persuade himself there was no such arguments in
being. For, speaking of the reasoning, which induced
irien to conclude the soul to be a substance distinct from
the body, he represents it thus: " Men taking it for
" granted that they knew all the perceivable properties
"• of matter, they concluded that such things as could
u not be accounted for by these, were to be accounted
*£ for by the properties of some other substance/' And
again : " Vanity and presumption determine philosophers
" to conclude, that because they cannot account for the
4i phenomena of the mind by what they know very super-
*£ ficially of solid extended substance, this mind must be
C£ some other substance." Such, indeed, was the state
of the controversy when LOCKE skimmed over the argu
ment But CLARKE and BAXTER went deeper. They
draw their conclusion, not on the presumption that they
knew all the knowable qualities of matter, and that be
tween these and thought there was no perceivable con
nexion ; but from this clear and solid truth, that from the
little we do know of body, we see a contradiction in sup
posing intelligence to be a quality of matter. For thus
they reasoned, though we know not all the powers of
matter, yet we know certainly it cannot have inconsistent
and contradictory powers. It is allowed to have essen
tially a vis inertice, or that it resists a change of its
state ; it is impossible, therefore, that it should, at the

same

Lett. II:] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 14*

same time, have spontaneous motion, or effect a change
of its state. If this be the case (and to deny that it is
the case, is confounding all the principles of human
knowledge), then it is impossible the soul should bz
material. — But his Lordship feasts us with the same fine
argument on the motion of body. " They are unable
46 (says he) to conceive how body can act at all, and
*' therefore they suppose the immediate presence and
<i action of an incorporeal agent in every operation of
" corporeal nature." Whereas the truth is, they fully
conceive from the vis inertia of body, or its resistance
to a change of its state, the absolute impossibility that it
should act at all : and from thence see the necessity of
an incorporeal agent in every operation of corporeal
nature. You will think, perhaps, his Lordship knew no
more of this question than as it stood in his Master
Locke; and that he had never heard of Baxter, who has
carried it farthest, and treated it the most profoundly.
I should have thought so too, but that I find his Lord
ship, in one place, speaking with that contempt of Baxter's
reasoning which is. his wont, whenever any thing he can
not answer bears hard upon \hejirst philosophy. It is
where he honours us with his own thoughts concerning
ATTRACTION. " Attraction (saith his Lordship) may
" be, notwithstanding all the silly abstract reasoning
" to the contrary, a REAL PROPERTY OF MATTER."
Now you are to understand that Baxter, when he has
evinced the truth of NEWTON'S idea of attraction (who
makes it no real, or essential property of matter), em
ploys this idea to prove, that it implies a contradiction
to suppose, the soul may be a quality of matter. This
great truth, deep reflection, and a thorough comprehension
of the Newtonian philosophy, enabled Baxter to de
monstrate. On the other hand, no reflection, no philo
sophy, nothing but mere intuition made his Lordship
conclude that it is so far from being a contradiction,
that the soul is a quality of matter, that it is a self-
evident fact. But, you shall hear his own marvellous
words : " I am persuaded that God can make material

f systems capable of thought, because I must renounce
" one of the kinds of knowledge that he has given me,

' and the first, though not the principal in the order of

" knowing

142 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IL

" knowing, or admit that HE HATH PONK so/' Locke
only contended for a bare possibility : his Lordship sees
the necessity: so much wiser is the disciple than his
master.

3. But let us now go on with his Lordship's system.
His third great principle is the FALSEHOOD of the Jewish
and Christian REVELATIONS. And here you will find
no argument omitted that bears with the least force
against either of them. It is true, they are none of his
own. They are borrowed from the minute philosophers
that went before him : of whom it must be owned his
Lordship is a very close and humble imitator.

His attack on revealed religion is in two parts. The

first is a. confutation of its truth, as it lies in its purity,

in sacred Scripture : the secc/id, an insinuation of its

falsehood^ as it is seen in its corrupt state amongst modern

churches.

Judaism is attacked more fully and avowedly in the
first way : and Christianity, in the latter.

i. /lithe arguments against revelation, as represented
in the Bible, are taken from BLOUNT, TOLAND, COLLINS*
CHUBB, MORGAN, and their fellows. I must except,
indeed, the atrocious terms in which they are always in-
forced. For the iniquity of the times would not suffer
those confessors of truth to put forth more than half
their strength, as his Lordship assures us. When I
observe, his reasoning here is taken from these men, it is
not spoken in disparagement of it : for, to say .the truth,
it is the best in all his Essays.

One thing, indeed, fails out unluckily. All his Lord
ship's great originals, in common with the rest of man
kind, professed to believe the MORAL ATTRIBUTES of the
Deity. And, on this principle, inforced their arguments
against the truth of revealed religion : indeed, what other
principle is there that will afford any ground for an ob
jection against it? It is doubted, whether a moral dis
pensation come from the Author to whom it is ascribed.
The doubt arises from our knowledge of his moral cha
racter ; between which and the dispensation there is $
supposed discordancy: but take away the moral character,
and the doubt ceases with it. Yet his Lordship professes
to have no idea of these moral attributes. No matter.

They

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 143

They were necessary to be taken into service here, for
the sake of carrying on his schemes : and a philosopher
can drop his principle, as a politician does his friend,
when he is of no use, and renew his acquaintance again
when he is. These discarded attribute* therefore are
on this occasion taken into favour ; soon indeed, to be
dismissed again, and his OLD PRINCIPLE of wo morality
in the Godhead, reassumed, when he wants to guard
against the terrors of a FUTURE STATE ; in which, to do
it justice, it performs true knights-service. Much indeed
is it to be lamented, that his old principle should ever
grow capricious ; and that when it had so effectually ex
cluded God's moral government, as recommended by
natural religion, it should oppose itself to those argu
ments which are for excluding God's moral government
as recommended by revelation. But after all, what if
his Lordship played booty, and was for bringing in a
political religion by a side wind ; just as Father Harduin
established church tradition. The Jesuit, when he had
destroyed all the monuments of antiquity, concluded we
should be glad to take refuge in an infallible guide: and
the noble Politician could not but see that when he had
taken away God's moral attributes, he had removed all
grounds for doubting of the divine origin of the Magi"
ftrates religion, from Amasis and Afncvet, to Thor
and Odin.

2. An historical deduction of the abuses and cor
ruptions of Christianity in the CHURCH OF ROME, to
advance superstition, fanaticism, and spiritual tyranny,
makes the second part of his Lordship's reasoning against
REVELATION ; and the subject of the largest of his Jour
Essays.

On this head he expatiates in all the forms of piety,
patriotism, and humanity. He bewails the dishonours
ilone to religion; he resents the violations of civil liberty;
and lie vindicates the common sense of mankind from the
scholastic jargon of an ignorant, debauched, and avaricious
clergy.

------- ££ Felicia tempora, quse te

" Moribus opponunt: habeat jam ROMA pudoreai."
On so trite a topic, the triumph of every true Protestant,
ffona Fox to Mr. Chandler, that is, from the first to the

last

144 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

last good writer upon the subject, his Lordship may be
well excused for unloading his Common-place. What
ever there is of a better taste, he has taken from Hooker,
Slillingfieet, Barrow, and such other of the English clergy
•who have most successfully detected the errors, and set
bounds to the usurpations of Popery. But as the object
of our divines in this detection was to recommend the
Gospel-truth; and of his Lordship, to discredit it; he
had need of other helps : and these, too, were at hand ;
such as Hobbes, Toland, Tindal, and Gordon ; whom
he faithfully copies, both in exaggerating the abuses, and
in draw ing false consequences from the reform of them.
Thus, according to those divines who wrote for truth,
SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY was modestly complained of as
hindering the advancement of real knowledge; as keep
ing men busied in trifling controversies ; and as making
them often mistake words for things. But with my Lord,
and these his better guides, who wrote against revela
tion, SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY is boldly accused to have
blotted out all knowledge, and to have left nothing in its
stead but madness, frenzy, and delirium. So again,
The end of those divines in opposing church- tyranny was
to introduce a RELIGIOUS SOCIETY on the principles of
Gospel-liberty : but the end of these philosophers in de
crying Popery is to establish a civil, in the place of a
religious usurpation, and to make the CHURCH A CREA
TURE OF THE STATE. In the mean time, he says boldly
and well, " That some men are IMPUDENT enough to
" pretend, others SILLY enough to believe, that they
" adhere to the Gospel, and maintain the cause of God
" against infidels and heretics, when they do nothing bet-
" ter nor more than expose the conceits of men." But
\vhile he is thus busy in observing what happens at one
end of this common fallacy, where the conceits of men
are mistaken for the cause of God, he suffers himself to
slip in, at the other : and does just the same against the
Gospel, which these impudent and silly men do for it.
He exposes the knavery of powerful churchmen, and the
folly of profound divines ; and then pretends, or believes^
that he hath discredited revelation itself.

However, to part friends with the DIVINES, after so
many hard words, he teaches them how to prop up, in

some

Lett. II.] HOLING BROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 145

some plausible way, their bungling systems of ARTIFI
CIAL THEOLOGY, just as he had before taught God
Almighty himself to mend his two dispensations. " Let
" us (says he) suppose a theist objecting — the believer
" might reply— he mi^ht add — he might add— and all
" this with great plausibility at least.'1 You will say
now, I envy" my Lord the glory of his instructions, so
well calculated to defend artificial theology, or other
wise I, who am not sparing of my quotations, would have
given them at large. To tell you the truth, I suppressed
them with design ; and in order to excite the reader's
curiosity. I am told there is need ot it ; and tuat t is
first philosophy, this physic of the soul, is not swallow
ed with that eagerness which might be expected or honed
for, on the fir^t appearance of so great a blessing. You
will suspect, by what you have observed in my former
Letter, that the public may possibly be over-dosed. But
what if they be ? It is only making it a little more pala^
table, and his followers will soon reconcile them to their
I physic.

4. His Lordship's fourth and last great principle is the
IMPOSSIBILITY of REVELATION in general.

He has refused no. arms, we see, to combat the revela
tions God hath actually given. He would seem to
relax a little of his hostility, as to those which God may
possibly give : tor in one place he says, he will not ab
solutely pronounce against the possibility oj God's
revealing his will to man. But whether lie equivocates,
whether he altered his mind, or whether he simply iorgot
himself (a matter of little consequence), most true it is,
that he hath formally laid down, an 1 largely insisted
upon, certain principles, \\hicii make revealed religion a

thing UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.

First, As to INSPIRATION, He not only denies ill
reality in the thing, but will not allow so much as any
meaning in the word. And a MIRACLE, he IK...IS
amongst matters impossible; what n^ver did, nor ever
can exist. But now, Without the tirst, no divine messen
ger could be sent ; for he must receive his orders rrom
God : and, without the second, no divine messenger
would be believed; for he must have his credentials to

VOL, XII. L man:

146 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IL

man :' and these credentials, on his Lordship's own prin
ciples, can be no other than miracles.

But here again you are to observe, that on this subject
likewise, infidelity is no more indebted to him than for his
good will. All he urges against inspiration and miracles
having beeii first urged by HOBBES and SPINOZA : by the
one, with more subtilty and exactness ; by the other,
with infinite more elegance.

Secondly, As to NATURAL RELIGION, his Lordship
holds it to be full, perfect, and well understood. He
holds, likewise, that the only conceivable purpose of
revelation must be to republish this natural religion.
The consequence is, and this his Lordship gives us to un
derstand, that the use of revelation is superseded. For
if it teaches more than natural Religion taught, or differ
ent from what it taught, the revelation is evidently false;
' if only the same, it is evidently superfluous.

Thirdly, As to a PARTICULAR PROVIDENCE, This,
his Lordship utterly rejects. But revealed religion is
nothing else than the exercise of that very providence, to
some declared end and purpose in the moral system.

On all these accounts, he concludes, and conse
quentially enough, that REASON HAS NOTHING FURTHER

TO DO, WHEN REVELATION BEGINS.

You have now, Sir, the whole of HIS LORDSHIP'S
SYSTEM, together with his principal topics for the support
of it ; both indeed very succinctly delivered : enough
however to shew you that these famous ESSAYS, which
you have so often heard cried up as the very mine and
treasury of all divine and human truths, are indeed little
other than a magazine or warehouse of other men's lum
ber: or (not to dishonour his Lordship by alow com
parison) like the mouth of your neighbouring SEVERN,
turbulent and dirty : which, let fabling Poets say \vhat
they please, we are sure never derived its source from
the pure and perennial urn of a dcmi-god : but, if one
may guess by the taste and colour, became thus consider
able from the confluence of shallow brooks and babbling
rivulets, of stagnant ditches, common-sewers, and yet
stranger mixtures, scoured off and put into a ferment by
the hasty rage of some peevish land-torrent.

THE

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 147

THE main pillar of his system, you see, is this extra
vagant paradox. That we have xo ADEQUATE ideas of
God's moral attributes, /«',?_ GOODNESS and JUSTICE,
as we have of 'his natural ', his wisdom and power. — •
And here, let me observe once for all, that his Lordship
uses the words, inadequate ideas, and, no ideas, as terms
of the same import. And, I think, not improperly. I
have therefore followed him in the indifferent use of either
expression. For the reason of his calling our ideas of
God's moral attributes, INADEQUATE, is, because he
denies that goodness and justice in God, and goodness
and justice amongst Men, are the same ix KIXD. But
if not the same in kind, we can have no idea of them ;
because we have no idea of any other hind of goodness
and justice.

As the reasoning on this head, contrary to his usual
wont, is intirely his own, and extremely curious in itself,
I will once more go a little out of my way to set it in a true
light ; that it may neither impose by its novelty ; nor too
much shock You and all good men by its unchecked
atrocity.

His three positions are,

1. That, by metaphysics, or the reasoning a pr iori,
we can gain no knowledge of God at all.

2. That our knowledge of his attributes are to be
acquired only by a contemplation on his works, or by
the reasoning a posteriori.

3. That in this way, we can only arrive at the know
ledge of his natural attributes, not of his moral.

" IT is from the constitution of the world ALOXE (says
" his Lordship) and from the state of mankind in it, that
" we can acquire any ideas, of the divine attributes, or
" a right to affirm any thing about them."

" The knowledge of the Creator is on many accounts
" necessary to such a creature as man : and therefore we.
" are made able to arrive, by a proper exercise of our
" mental faculties, from a knowledge of God's works
t( to a knowledge of his existence, and of that infinite
' POWER and WISDOM which are demonstrated to us in
" them. OUR KXOWLEDGE CONCERNING GOD GOES

FURTHER."

Artificial theology connects by very problematical
L '2 " reasoning

148 A VIEW OF LOUD [Lett. IL

" reasoning a priori, MORAL attributes, such as we
" conceive them, and such as they are relatively to us,
" \vith the physical attributes of God ; though there be
" no sufficient foundation for this proceeding, nay, though
" the phenomena are in several cases repugnant."

Having thus assured us that the ideas of God's-moral
attributes are to be got by no consequential reasoning
at all, either a priori or a posteriori, the only two ways
\ve have to knowledge ; He rightly concludes, that if
Man hath such ideas, they were not found but invented
by him. And therefore, that nothing might be wanting
to the full diliicidation of this curious point, he acquaints
us who were the authors of the FICTION, and how
strangely the thing came about.

" Some of the Philosophers (says his Lordship) having
" been led by a more full and accurate contemplation of
" nature^ to the knowledge of a supreme self-existent
" Being of infinite power and wisdom, and the first cause
" of all things, were not contented with this degree of
" knowledge. They MADE A SYSTEM of God's MORAL
*c as well as physical attributes, BY WHICH TO ACCOUNT

" FOR THE PROCEEDINGS OF HIS PROVIDENCE."

These Philosophers, then^ it seems, invented the system
of God's moral attributes, in order to account for the
difficulties arising from the view of God's moral govern
ment. If the world till now had been so dull as to have
no conception of these attributes ; his Lordship's Philo
sophers, we see, made amends : who were so quick
witted to conceive, and so sharp-sighted to find out, the
obliquities of a crooked line before they had got any idea
of a straight one. For just to this, neither more nor
less, does his Lordship's observation amount, that — they
made a system of God's moral attributes, by which
to account for the proceedings of his providence. —
Till now, no man could conceive how any doubts con
cerning moral government could arise but on the pre
vious ideas of the moral attributes of the Governor.
This invention of his Lordship's old philosophers puts us
in mind of an ingenious modern, the curious SANCIIO
PANCHA; who, as his historian tells us, was very "in
quisitive to discover the author of that very useful 'in
dention we call SLEEP ; for, with this worthy Magistrate,
10 sleep

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 149

sleep and good cheer were the first philosophy. Now
the things sought after by Sancho and his Lordship were
at no great distance : for if sleeping began when men first
shut their eyes, it is certain the idea of God's goodness
appeared as soon as ever they opened them.

Dr. Clarke's demonstration of the moral attributes
a priori, I shall leave, as his Lordship is pleased to do,
in all its force. If the Doctor's followers think their
master's honour concerned, where his arguments are not,
they have a large field and a safe to shew their prowess.
I rather chuse to undertake the noble Philosopher on his
own terms, without any other arms than the arguments
a posteriori. For he is such a champion for the good
cause, that he not only appoints his adversaries the field,
but prescribes to them the use of their weapons.

But his Lordship, like other great men, is not easily
approached ; and when he is, not always fit to be seen.
You catch his FIRST PHILOSOPHY, as Butler's hero did
Aristotle's FIRST MATTER, undressed, and without a •
rag of form, however flaunting and fluttering in FRAG
MENTS. To speak plainly, his Lordship's entire neglect
of method betrays him into. endless REPETITIONS: and
in these, whether for want of precision in his ideas, pro
priety in his terms, or art in his composition, the question
is perpetually changing ; and rarely without being new-
covered by an equivocal expression. If you add to this,
the perpetual CONTRADICTIONS into which he falls,
either by defect of memory, excess of passion, or distress
of argument, you will allow it to be no easy matter to
take him fairly, to know him fully, and to represent him
to the best advantage : in none of which offices would I
be willingly defective. Indeed, when you have done
this, the business is over ; and his Lordship's reasoning
generally confutes itself,

When I reflect upon what this has cost me, the reading
over two or three bulky volumes to get possession of a
single argument; which now you thin k'you hold, and then
again you lose; which meets you full when you least
expect it ; and slips away from you the very moment it
promises to do most : when, I say, I reflect upon all this,
I cannot but lament the hard luck of the English
£LERGY, who, though apparently least fit, as being made

L 3 parties,

i.5o A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II,

parties, certainly least affected, as there is nothing that
can impose on a .scholar, and a great deal that may mislead
the people, are likely to be the men most engaged with his
Lordship in this controversy. Time was, when if a writer
had a disposition to seek objections against Religion,
though he found them hardly, and urged them heavily, yet
he would digest his thoughts, and methodize his reasoning.
The clergy had then nothing to do but to answer him,
if they found themselves able. But since this slovenly
custom (as Lord SH.AFTESBUKY calls it) has got amongst
our Free-thinkers, of taking their physic in public,
of throwing about their loose and crude indigestions under
the name of FRAGMENTS, things which in their very
name imply not so much the want, as the exclusion of
Mjforrn, the advocate of Religion has had a fine time of
it : he must work them into consistence, he must mould
them into shape, before he can safely lay hold of them
himself, or present them handsomely to the public. But
these gentlemen have provided thart a clergyman should
never be idle. All, he had of old, to attend, was the
saving the souls of those committed to his care. He
must now begin his work a great deal higher ; he must
first convince his flock that they have souls to be saved.
And the spite of all is, that at the same time his kind
masters have doubled his task, they appear very well dis
posed to lessen his wages.

WE have observed, that the DENIAL of God's moral
attributes is the great barrier against Religion in general :
but it is more especially serviceable in his Lordship's
idiosyncratic terrors ; the terrors of a future state. To
these we owe his famous book of FRAGMENTS, composed
occasionally, and taken as an extemporaneous cordial,
each stronger than the other, to support himself under
his frequent paroxysms. For, set the moral attributes
aside, and we can neither form any judgment of the end
of man, nor of the nature of God's moral government.
All our knowledge will be confined to our present state
and condition*. It is by these attributes, we learn, that
man was made for happiness', and that God's dispensa-

* One of bis Lordship's corollaries therefore from the proposi
tion of JIG moral attributes, is this, " Our knowledge concerning
" God goes no further than for the necessary use of human life."

tion

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 151

tion to us here is but part of our moral system : This
naturally extends our views to, and terminates our know
ledge in, futurity.

The fate of all Religion therefore being incl uded in the
question of God's moral attributes, I hold it of much
importance to prove against his Lordship, that MEN MAY
ACQUIRE ADEQUATE IDEAS OF THEM in the same way, .
and with equal certainty, in which they acquire the know
ledge of God's natural attributes : and the knowledge
of these, his Lordship deduces from its original in the
following words —

" .All our knowledge of God (says he) is derived from ..
" his works. Every part of the immense universe, and
" the order and harmony of the whole, are not only
"" conformable to our ideas or notions of WISDOM and ,
" POWER, but these ideas and notions were impressed
" originally and principally by them, on every attentive
11 mind ; and men were led to conclude, with the utmost
" certainty, that, a Being of infinite wisdom and power
" made, preserved, and governed the system. As far as
" we can discover, we discern these in all his works;
", and where we cannot discern them, it is manifestly due '
" to our imperfection, not to his. This now is real
" knowledge, or there is no such thing as knowledge.
u. We acquire it immediately in the objects themselves,
" in God, and in nature,' the work of God. We know
" what wisdom and power are : we know both intuitively,
" and by the help of our senses, that such as we conceive
*f them to be, such they appear in the work: and there-*
" fore we know demonstratively that such they are in the
" worker,"

All this is mighty well ; and on these very grounds I
undertake to prove that men may get as clear and precise
ideas of God's GOODNESS and JUSTICE.
. But, to prevent, or, indeed, now things are gone thus
far, rather to redress all ambiguity in the terms, and
equivocation in the use of them; it will be proper to ex
plain what true PHILOSOPHY means by GOD'S WORKS,
whether physical or moral.

Now, it n&eans, if I am not mistaken, that CONSTITU
TION OF THINGS which God hath established, and di
rected to a plain and obvious end : no regard bQiiw 1 id

f- O O

J-4 to

152 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett II.

to those impediments or obstructions in its course, which
the Author of Nature hath permitted to arise from any
part oi the material, or intellectual creation.

Thus, when we consider his physical works, in order
to make our estimate of his wisdom and power, we con
ceive them as they are in themselves ; and in the perfec
tion of their constitution ;, though the greater portions of
the physical system may, from the intractability of
matter, be subject to some inconsiderable irregularities ;
which, as the true PIIIU SOPHER* observes, will be apt
to increase till this system wants a reformation : and
though the smaller portions, such as the bodies of animals,
may, from various accidents in their conception and birth,
often want that convenient formation and adaption of their
parts, from the wonderful contrivance of which, in the
various bodies of animals in general, arises so illustrious
an evidence of the wisdom and power of the Workman.

Surely, then, common sense and all equitable measure
require us to estimate God's moral works upon the same
standard : to consider what the moral constitution is in
itself' : and (when the question is of God's goodness
and justice) to keep that view distinct: and not suffer
it to be disturbed or broken by any interruptions occasion
ed by the perverse influence either of the passion or
action of material or immaterial Beings. For, here,
both concur to violate the constitution : in the natural
system, mansjree-will has no place : in the moral, the
abuse ofjrce-will occasions the greatest of its disorders.

In prosecuting this question, therefore, As, in order to
acrii.ire and confirm our ideas ot God's wisdom and
power, *-e consider the natural system so far forth only
as its order and harmony is supported by the general
lav of matter and motion : so, in order to acquire and
confirm our d as of his goodness and justice, we should
regaid the moral system so tar forth only as its order
and haririoiu is supported by that GENE UAL i AW, which
annexes happiness to virtue, and to vice, misery,

Thus much, and only thus much, ig God's work, in
either svs'em: and it is from God's work we are to de^
monstrate his attributes. The rest, (where disorders real
or apparent obtrude themselves to obstruct our views in

• Newton.

these

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 153

these discoveries) proceeds from matter and the human
mind*

And it is not to be forgotten, that the conclusion we
draw from hence, in support of our adequate ideas of
God's moral attributes, has the greater strength upon his' -
Lordship's own principles: who holds, that this constitu
tion arises solely from the WILL of God: for then we
are sure that the WILL, which annexes happiness to
virtue, and misery to vice, must arise from God's moral
rather than from his first physical nature.

Having premised thus much ; no more, indeed, than
necessary to obviate one continued SOPHISM, that runs
through all his Lordship's reasonings, against the moral
attributes (where, the course and operation of that
moral constitution, as it appears under the disturbances
occasioned by mans free-will, is perpetually put for the
constitution itself ), I now proceed to shew, from GOD'S
WORKS, that vve have as precise ideas of his GOODNESS
and JUSTICE, as oi' his power and wisdom.

His Lordship observes, that from every part of the
immense universe, and from the harmony of the whole,
men are led to conclude, with the utmost certainty,
that a Being of infinite wisdom and power made, pre
served, and governed the system. This, he observes
in favour of the natural attributes. And what should
hinder men from making the same observation in favour
of the moral, viz. That the happiness and misery, by the
very constitution of nature, attendant on virtue and on
vice, lead men to conclude, with equal certainty, that a
Being of infinite goodness and justice made, preserves,
and governs the system ?

The existence of this moral constitution his Lordship
acknowledges. Let us consider it, therefore, both as it
respects BODIES of men, and INDIVIDUALS.

That communities are always happy or miserable in
proportion as their manners are virtuous or vicious, his
Lordship himself is the readiest to demonstrate. If such
a constitution ot things does not bespeak the Author of it
good and just* how is it possible to conclude any thing
of the character of the Creator from his works ? His
Lordship thinks, taat from tiie marks of wisdom and
power in $&physrc<tl system we learn with the utmost

certainty

J54 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II,

certainty that God is wise and powerful ; and he says,
that we acquire this knowledge immediately, as it were,
by our senses. Are there not the self-same marks of
goodness and justice in this part at least of the moral
system that respects communities? And do not we
come to know as immediately by our senses, and as
certainly by our reason, that God is good and just ?

If we consider the moral constitution, as it respects
particulars, we see virtue and vice have the same in
fluence on our happiness and misery. Here, indeed, we
find more interruptions in the means to the end than in
the other part. Our material and our intellectual natures
have here more power to disorder the harmony of the
system. In communities, it can rarely be disturbed, but
by a pestilence, or that other moral plague, a hero or a
conqueror: amongst particulars, indeed, physical evil
and the abuse of free-will operate more strongly. But
when once the demonstration of the moral attributes is
clearly made from that part of the constitution which re
gards communities, it can never be shaken by the dis
orders in that which regards particulars. The established
truth is now a principle for further discoveries ; and all
we can fairly deduce from these disorders is the CER
TAINTY of & future state. But this by the way.

What I insist upon at present is, that, to decide the
question concerning God's attributes, we are to consider
the constitution of things, as it is in itself, simply. This
is, properly, God's work. The disorders in it, occasioned
by the abuse of man's free-will, is not his work, but
mans, This, his Lordship too, upon another occasion,
namely, when he combats the argument of a future state,
from an unequal providence, is perpetually repeating.
So that these disorders must, even on his Lordship's own
principles, be excluded from the account, when we, esti~
mate God's nature and attributes from his works,

" But we see not those disorders in the natural world,
which we both see and feel in the moral." '• This would
be some objection did God in the moral, as in the na*
tiiral system, direct immediately, or constitute things
mechanically ; or had free-will the same influence on the
natural as on the moral system. — Did God direct in
both constitutions, immediately or mechanically ; or

did

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY, 155

did he direct immediately and mechanically in neither,
and that yet the moral remained more subject to disorder
than the natural ; it might indeed follow that we had
not so clear ideas of God's goodness and justice as of
his wisdom and power : but since he has thought fit to
leave man FREE; and has been pleased to softer the
abuse of free-will to affect the moral system, and not the
natural ; as this, I say, is the case, the superior irre
gularities in the one do not take off from the equal clear
ness of the demonstration, which results from the nature
of both constitutions. " This difference" (to speak in
the words of a late writer) " is not to be ascribed to a
" contrary conduct in the Governor of the two systems,
" but to the contrary natures of the subjects. Passive
" matter being totally inert, its resistance to the laws
" impressed upon it must be extremely weak : and con-
" sequently the disorders arising from that resistance
" proportion ably slow and unheeded : while that active
<( self-moving principle, the mind, flies out at once from
' • the centre of its direction, and can every moment de-
" fleet from the line of truth and reason. Hence moral
" disorders began early, became excessive, and have
" continued, through all ages, to disturb the harmony of
" the system*."

What is here said will, I suppose, be sufficient to con
fute the following assertions ; and to detect the mistake
on which they arise.

" Everything (says his Lordship) shews the wisdom

c and power of God conformably to our ideas of wisdom

" and power in the physical world and in the moral.

' But every thing does not shew in like manner the

;( justice and goodness conformably to oar ideas of

'* these attributes in either. The physical attri^

" buies are in their nature more glaring and less

'• equivocal."

And again, " There is no sufficient foundation in the
f phenomena of nature, to connect the moral attributes
1 with the physical attributes of God. Nay, the
'• phenomena are in several cases repugnant.^

JBut since he goes so far as to talk of the want of a

* The Principles of Natural and Revealed 'Religion^ in a course
pf Sermons &t Lincoln's Inn,— See Vol. IX. p. 48.

foundation^

156 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IL

foundation, and even a repugnancy ; Before I proceed
with the main branch of my reasoning, I will just urge
one single argument for the reality and full evidence of
the moral attributes : and it shall be taken from himself,
and shall conclude on his own principles.

He tells us, that such as he, " who apply themselves
: to \hsjirst philosophy, apply themselves to the noblest

6 objects that can demand the attention of the mind

: To the signification of GOD'S WILL, concerning the
" duties we owe to him, and to one another."

And again, " It is sufficient to establish our moral

' obligations, that we consider them relatively to our own

: system. From thence they arise : and since they arise

<c from thence, it must be the WILL of that Being who

" made the system, that we should observe and practise

«' them/

Let me ask then, How it is that we collect this WILL
from the objects which his Lordship allows us to con
template, namely, his WORKS in this system? He will
say from certain qualities in those objects. — What are
those qualities? He will reply, fat Jit nesses of means
to ends. — Who was the Author of these fitnesses? He
hath told us, the God of nature. — It was God's tt'/V/
then, that we should use the means, in order to obtain
the ends. Now, in the moral System, the means are
virtuous practice ; the end, happiness. Virtue therefore
must needs be pleasing to him ; and Vice, as its contrary,
displeasing. Well, but then, as to this like and dislike ;
it must be either capricious, or it must be regulated on
the nature of things. Wisdom, which his Lordship con
descends to give his Maker, will not allow us to suppose
it capricious. It is regulated therefore on the nature of
tilings. But if the nature of things be, as his Lordship
holds it is, the constitution of God, and dependent on his
will, then he who is pleased with virtue, and displeased
with vice, must needs be himself good andj'wsf,

To proceed now with the principal branch of our
reasoning. 1 1 is Lordship goes on thus. But men not
only might collect God's natural attributes from the
physical system, but in effect they did : and all men,
at all times, had these notions so strongly impressed
oti them, that they were led to conclude with the,

utmost

Lett II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 157

utmost certainty for a Being of infinite power and
wisdom.

I desire to kno\v in what time or place it ever hap
pened, before his Lordship philosophised at Battersea,
and could find no foundation, in the phenomena of
nature, to connect the moral with the physical attri
butes of God, that a man, who believed God's infinite
wisdom and power, did not with equal confidence believe
his -infinite goodness and justice? In truth, these two
sets of ideas, the physical and moral attributes of the
Deity, were equally extensive, they were equally steady,
and, "till now, they were always inseparable.

Pie says, that as far as we can discover, we discern
infinite wisdom and power in all God's works: and
where we cannot discern them, it is manifestly due
to our imperfection, not to his.

What his Lordship here says will deserve to be con
sidered. A comparison is insinuated between our dis
covery of infinite power and wisdom from the physical
works of God;, and our discovery of infinite goodness
and justice from his moral works; in which, the advan
tage is given to the former. Now, in order to come to a
just decision in this point (omitting at present the notice
of his general sophism, which operates in this observation,
as in the rest), we must distinguish between the means of
acquiring the knowledge of God's attributes, and that
knowledge when acquired.

As to the first (the means of acquiring) there seems
to be some advantage on the side of God's PHYSICAL
works. For, as his Lordship rightly observes, where we
cannot discern wisdom and power in the physical
works, it is due to our imperfection, not to his : for
as men advance in the knowledge of nature we see
more and more of wisdom and power. And he in
sinuates, we cannot say the same concerning the difficulties
in the moral system, It is true, we cannot. But then
let us tell him, neither can we say the contrary. The
reason is, The physical system lies open to our enquiries ;
and by the right application of our senses to well tried
experiments, we are able to make considerable advances
in the knowledge of Nature. It is not so in the moral
system ; all we know here are a few general principles

concerning

*58 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IL

concerning its constitution; and further than this, human
wit or industry is Unable to penetrate. These general
principles are, indeed, amply sufficient to deduce and
establish the moral attributes from the moral system ;
but not sufficient to remove ail difficulties that arise from
what we see of the actual administration of that system.
So that, though zee cannot say, thit as we advance in
the knowledge of the moral system zee see more and
more f goodness and justice ; So neither can his Lord
ship say (though his words seem to insinuate he could)
that *is we advance, we see less and less. Whereas the
truth is, beyond those general principles, we cannot
advance at all.

But then, as to the second part in the distinction (the
knowledge oj the attributes, when acquired), I hold
the advantage, and a great one it is, lies altogether on the
side of the MORAL. And this, I cannot better explain to
you than in the words of the writer, quoted just before:
u Though the idea (says this Divine) of God's natural
" attributes be as clear in the abstract, as that of his
" mcral, yet the idea of his moral attributes is, in the
" concrete, more adequate than that of his. natural. The
" reason seems convincing. The moral relation in which
" we stand to God, as free agents, is juat the same
" whether man exists alone, or whether he be but a link
" in the chain of innumerable orders of intelligences sur-
<k rounding the whole creation. Hence we must needs
st have a full knowledge of our duty to him, and of his
'* disposition towards us : on which kno wledge is founded
" the exactness of our conceptions of his moral attributes,
" his justice and goodness. But the natural relation in
" which we, or any of God's creatures, stand towards
" him, as material Beings, is not the same when considered
*' simply, as when a portion of a dependent and con-
" nected whole. Because, whenever such a whole exists,
*-f the harmony and perfection of it must first of all be
" consulted. This harmony ariseth from the mutual sub-
" serviency and union of its parts. But this subserviency
" may require a ministration of government, with regard
" to certain portions of matter thus allied, different from
" what might have followed had ..those portions stood
" alone, because that precise disposition, which might

" be

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 159

" be fit in one case, might be unfit in the other. Hence
" we, who know there is a Whole, of which our material
" system is a Part, and yet are totally ignorant both of its
" nature and extent, can have but a very confused idea of
" that physical relation in which we stand towards God ;
"• so that our conceptions of his natural attributes, his
" power and wisdom, which are founded on that ides,
" must in the concrete be proportionably vague and in-
" adequate*."

But you will ask, perhaps, whence arises this recipro
cal advantage which the moral and the natural attributes
have over one another, in the means of acquiring the
knowledge of them, and the precision of that knowledge
when acquired ? I will tell you in two wrords. Of our
own physical system, we know many particulars, (that is,
we discover much of the means, but nothing of the end) ;
and of the universal physical system we are entirely
ignorant. On the other hand, \ve know but few particu
lars of our own moral system, (that is, we discover only
the end., and not the means) ; and of the universal moral
system, we understand the general principles.

His Lordship proceeds. This now [the knowledge of
God's natural attributes] is real knowledge *y or there
is no such thing as knowledge. Jtre acquire it imme
diately in the objects themselves, IN GOD, and in
Nature the work of God.

What his Lordship means by, in God, in distinction
from the work of God, I confess I do not understand :
Perhaps it may be intended to insinuate, in honour of the
natural attributes, that theyv may be even proved
a priori ; for this is not the first time by many, when
after having heartily abused a person or thing, he has
been reduced to support himself on the authority, or the
reasoning they afford hiiH. Or perhaps, it was only
used to round the period, and set off his eloquence.
However, I agree with him, that this is real knowledge.
And so too, I think, is the knowledge of the moral attri
butes, so gained, Why truly, says his Lordship, / do
allow just so much goodness and justice in God as we
see in that CONSTITUTION", which annexes happiness to

* The Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, in a course
ef Sermons at Lincoln's Inn,— See Vol. IX, pp. 42, & seq.

virtue.

i6o A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. I L

virtue, and misery to vice. But this, says he, I think,
had better be called WISDOM. I think so too; if by so
much, he means no more than what concerns God's
natural government: and that he means no more, is
plain, from his making the natural consequence of. vice
and virtue the only sanction of the moral law. But I
will venture to go further, and say, that, from what we
see in this constitution, we may collect PERFECT good
ness and justice. Matter and man's free-will disturb
the system: But if the constitution be the effect of God's
will, as his Lordship holds it is ; and the mark of his
wisdom, as all mankind hold with him; Does not that
wisdom require that his will should not be defeated?
Would it not be defeated, if the disorders occasioned by
the perversity of his creatures were not remedied and set
right? And is not A REMEDY the clearest mark -of
PERFECT goodness and justice ?

Take it in another light. Free-will crosses the consti
tution, which God, by establishing, shews he intended
should take place. This present disturbance could not
have been prevented, because, according to my Lord and
his: Poet, it was necessary to the schemes of Divine Wis
dom, that there should be such a creature as MAN :

" For in the scale of reasoning life, 'tis- plain

" There must be, somewhere, such a rank as Man."

The consequence is, that the disorder will be hereafter
rectified.

Had Man indeed been made unnecessarily, and this
Man had broke in upon God's general system, his Lord
ship might have had some pretence to say, as he doest

that GOD MEANT THE SYSTEM SHOULD NOT BE FUR
THER PURSUED; that is, that the scheme which annexes
happiness to virtue, and misery to vice, should remain in
its present condition of an incomplete dispensation, to all
eternity. But since Man is acknowledged to be a neces
sary part of a general system, complete in all its mem
bers, it is nonsense to talk of God's not meaning the
particular system should be further pursusd, when
that further pursuit is only to bring it to its natural
period ; short of which, it would remain unfinished, nay
unformed,

He

Lett. II] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 161

He goes on. We know what WISDOM and POWER
are. We know both intuitively, and by the help of
our senses, that such as we conceive them to be, such
they appear in the WORK; and therefore we know de~
monstrativdy that such they are in the WORKER.

And do we not know what GOODNESS and JUSTICE
are ? Do we not intuitively, and by the help of our
senses know, that such as we conceive them to be, such
they appear in the WORK, namely, in that constitution,
of things which, his Lordship tells us, annexes happi
ness to virtue, and misery to vice ? And may we not
demonstratively collect from thence that such they are
in the WORKER, since this constitution, his Lordship tells
us again, is the effect of God's WILL? On his own
principles, therefore, applied to his own state of the rea
soning a posteriori, it appears, that God is of injinite
goodness and justice, as well as of infinite wisdom and
power.

But to give AUTHORITY to his partial reasoning (the

usual support of all partialities) he, in one place, puts

it into the mouth of Anaxagoras. " Should you ask

* Anaxagoras (says he) what goodness is, or justice, he

' might bid you, perhaps, turn your eyes inward, first;

' then, survey mankind ; observe the wants of indivi-

" duals, the benefits of society, and, from these particu-

" lars, frame the general notions of goodness and justice.

" He might go a step further : and add, this is human

' goodness and human justice, such as we can compre-

' hend, such as we can exercise, and such as the Supreme

: Mind has made it both our duty and interest to exercise,

' by the constitution of the human system, and by the

( relations which arise in it : from all which our

" notions of goodness and justice result, and are com-

" pounded."

JVt know, then, what goodness and justice are, as
well as what wisdom and power are ; we know both in
tuitively and by the help of our senses, that such as
ive conceive them to be, such they appear in the work.
For he bids us turn our eyes inward', then survey
mankind; and lastly, observe how reason, from the
constitution of human nature, confirms our intuitive
knowledge, and that which we gain by the help of our
VOL. XII, M senses^

A VIEW OF LORD [Left, If,

sense*. But what does all this signify, if Anaxagoras or
his Lordship he hi an humour of concluding against theij
own premisses? Hear then how the speech ends — " Of
" divine goodness and divine justice might this philoso-
a pher conclude, I AM- UNABLE TO FRAME ANY ADE-
'il QTJATE NOTIONS." What t Unahle to frame those
notions which God, by his moral constitution, has put
into our hands ; and hy the declaration of his WILL has
taught us to Qppty ? — This old philosopher, I suppose,
was not brought in to he laughed at, like his drunken
ehurch-HELOTEs; yet he plays the fool to ad-miration.—
We DO KNOW, says Anaxagoras, what goodness and
justice are :- ice know both intuitively, and by the help
of our senses, that snch as zee conceive them to be,
such they appear in the WORK- and THEREFOU-E tee
no NOT KNOW that such they are in the WORKER.

Might I be permitted to address myself to this renegado
sophist, I would say — Your brethren, the ancient philo
sophers, reasoned a posteriori in this manner, " Can
37ou think there is zcisdom and power in you, and none ia
your Maker?" —By no means. They reasoned well.-—
Let me ask yoa then, ff Is there goodness and justice in
you, and none in your Maker?" His answer, I suppose,
would be the same. But, prompted by his Lordship, in-
to whose service he is now entered, he perhaps might add,
That, from human goodness and justice we cannot
come to the N Aft? HE of the clnhte. What Imiders us,
I pray you? Is it not from our intuit ire conception
of our own wisdom and pouter that we gain an adequate
idea of God's ? Are 'wisdom and power MORE PERFECT,.
as tfcey are found in Man, than goodness and justice f
Ifthwyforc the IMPERFECTION ef these attributes in Man
"hinder our acquiring an adequate idea of those in God,
we can have no adequate idea of his zcisdom and pozcer:
vlf the IMPERFECTION does not hinder, then we may
have an adequate idea of his goodness &&A justice.

But, the inference to God's pozcer ancl wisdom, his
Lordship says, is supported by what men see of the eiFects
of them, in his "Works; the order and harmony of the
physical system. Do we not see likewise the effects of
God's goodness and just ice, in the order and harmony
€>f the rn-oral) in the happiness that naturally attends

virtue,,

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 163

virtue, and the misery consequent on vice? And is not
the moral system as much God's work, as the physical?
Thus, Sir, you see, that by the very reasoning his
Lordship EMPLOYS to prove the natural attributes, and
by the very method he PRESCRIBES to us for proving
the moral, we have demonstrated these with a precision
and a certainty, at least equal to the other. His Lord
ship seems to have been aware of the event; and there
fore, when he had set us at defiance, he tried to put the
change upon us, under pretence of reminding us that the
moral attributes should be examined by, or applied to,

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD, AND THE STATE

OF MANKIND IN IT. I had full as much reason to be
aware of his Lordship. And therefore, in stating the
question, at my entrance on the subject, I obviated this
miserable sophism. I call it by no better name, because
it is not the constitution of the world, or the state of
mankind in it, but the CONSTITUTION OF THE MORAI,
SYSTEM, or the nature of virtue and vice, as they essentially
operate to produce happiness and misery, by which God's
. moral attributes are to be tried and ascertained. But
this, which is a steady, uniform view, he would have us
turn from ; to contemplate that obscure, disturbed, and
shifting scene, the actual state of vice and virtue, of misery
and happiness, amongst men. That is, he would have
us conclude concerning God's nature, not from his VO
LUNTARY CONSTITUTION of tilings, but from the
BREACHES in that constitution made by the abuse of
man's free-will : which yet (when he is arguing/or an
equal providence) he 'again and again confesses ought
not to be charged upon God; and declaims violently
against the folly of those who impute the effects of that
abuse to him. Though here (in his various attempts to
blot out the idea of God's moral attributes) he be full
of the disorders of the moral system considered as part of
God's design.

But since I have mentioned his arguments for an equal
providence, 1 should be unjust to You, who expect a fair
view of his Lordship's philosophy from me, if I concealed
another of his contradictions. — He had both Matfsfafuft
state and God's moral attributes to throw out of the
religious world ; or, to speak more properly, he had RE-

M 2

164- A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

LI G i ON to overturn, by taking away its very ESSENCE:
and as the irregufarlties in tlie present administration^
of Providence stood in the way of his first attempt ; and
the consistency of the moral system, in the way of the
other; when he argues against a future state, You would
think there were no irregularities ; and when he argues-
against the moral attributes, You would think there was
BO consistency.

We nowr come to his- Lordships particular objections-
against the moral attributes. One of them is, that they
are BOUNDED.

" They [the Divines] go further. As God is perfect,
6t and Man very imperfect, they talk of his injinite good-
" ness and jubilee, as of his ioSnite wisdom and power;.
" though the latter may preserve their nature without any
" conceivable bounds, and the former must cease to be
" what they are, unless we conceive them BOUNDED.
" Their nature implies necessarily a limitation in the
" exercise of them. Thus then the moral attributes?
*c according to this theology, require infinitely more of
ff God to man than men are able, or would be obliged
" if they were able, to exercise to one another : greater
c< profusion* in bestowing benefits and rewards, greater
" vigour in punishing offences."

You have here his Lordship's own words ; and nothing
less could induce any one to think so disadvantageously
of this Ilighter of wrongs and Redrcsscr of grievances, as
they necessarily imply. Let us consider the premisses?
and examine the wferences both implied and expressed.

He says, i . That the moral attributes are bounded ';
2. That the natural are not bounded. Let us see to
what the first proposition amounts ; and how much truth
there is in the second.

i. The moral attributes are considered by us as rela
tive to intelligent creatures : The natural are not so
considered. Thus the goodness and justice, when relative
to man, are greatly bounded; a certain low degree of
reward suffices for his good] a certain low degree of
punishment for his evil actions. Let GodTs goodness and
justice respect a higher rank of intelligent beings, and
they will be then less bounded] for greater rewards and
punishments will be required : and so on, to the highest

rank

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKFS PHILOSOPHY. 165

rank of intelligent creatures. Yet, as the highest is at
infinite distance from .the Creator, the exercise of the
moral attributes, as they bear relation to his intelligent
-creatures, must be still bounded.

2. His second proposition is, that the natural attri~
butes arc not hounded. It is true, these cannot be
considered as relative to God's intelligent creatures;
yet since, in their exercise, they must be considered as
relative to his Creation at large ; and since Creation,
however immense, is not infinite, the natural attributes
so considered are net infinite : but if not infinite, they
are bounded. There is no difference therefore, in the
grercise of God's attributes, berween the moral and the
natural, save only in the degree.

But if we consider God's moral and natural attributes
snore abstractedly, not as they tire in the .exercise, and
relative to intelligent beings, and to actual creation, but as
they are in his nature, then they are both unbounded.
Thus we see his Lordship's notable distinction is both
imaginary and useless.

However, let fis give him all he asks; and then see
what he will be able to infer from it.

1. .His first inference seems to be this : As the moral
attributes are bounded, and not infinite like the natural,
our idea of them must be obscure and inadequate.
What ! because they are better adapted, as things bound
ed certainly are than things injinit e, to human contempla
tion? Our idea of such of God's attributes as bear rela
tion to a Being, whose nature and properties we know,
namely MAN, must needs be more adequate and better
-defined than the idea of such attributes as bear relation
to beings, whose nature and properties we know not,
namely the .UNIVERSE..

2. His other inference is expressed in these words:
Thus then the moral attributes, according to this
theology, require infinitely more of God to man, than
men are able, or would be obliged if they were able,
to exercise to one another. To say, the moral attri
butes, according to Christian theology, or, as he is pleased
tocaMit, artificial theology, requires ix FINITELY more,
is a wretched calumny. To say, it requires more, is
true. And for this plain reason : the relation between

M 3 Creator

166 A VIEW OF LORD ! [Lett. IT,

Creator and creature is very different from that between
fellow-creatures ; therefore the goodness is more abun
dant : The relation between lord and servo.at is very dif
ferent from that between fellow-servants) therefore the
justice is more severe. And if it would not be deemed
too IMPUDENT to refer his Lordship to Scripture, for in
struction (especially in a matter where the-abu.se of Scrip
ture was chiefly intended), he might there have found a
parable which would have set him right : and lias always
kept artificial theology , whatever he might think, from
going wrong. But infinite, when applied to the exercise
of a moral attribute in reference to man, is his Lordship's
nonsense, with due reverence be it spoken, not the non
sense of artificial Divines. They were not ignorant
that the rule, iujirmiorem vel dcteriorem parteui sequi-
tur consequentia^ held as well in morals as in logic.
Though God be infinite, man is finite; and therefore,
with respect to him, the exertion of a moral attribute is
finite, not infinite. His Lordship himself saw something
of this, as appears by his own words. The nature of
the moral attributes implies necessarily a limitation
in the use of them. And why would he suppose
Divines could not see as far into this matter as himself?

But if there be an error in artificial theology, he is
as sure, at one time or other, to espouse it ; as he is, at
all times, ready to calumniate the Divine who holds it.
Men, in their ill-advised zeal to defend the Scripture-
doctrinevof the Son's divinity, were not always sufficiently
careful' in selecting their arguments. Amongst such as
had perhaps been better let alone, they employed this ;
That as man's offence was against an infinite Being, it re
quired an infinite satisfaction ; which none but such a
Being could give. Now his Lordship, we see, espouses
this very principle, to discredit God's moral attributes,
and the artificial theology of Jesus Christ; which speaks,
indeed; of infinite rewards ; but not as matter of due, but
of grace.

As the being bounded is one of his Lordship's ob
jections against the moral attributes, so the being merely
HUMAN is another.

" After Dr. CLARKE (says he) has repeated over and
" over that all the moral attributes are the same in

" God

Lett II.] BOLINGBRQKE'S PHILOSOPHY. *6?

<c God as in our ideas; and that he who denies them to
"" be so, may as well deny the divine physical attributes,
" the Doctor insists only on two of the former, on those
•" of justice and goodness. He -was much in the right
*' to contract the generality of his assertion. The ab-
•" surdity of ascribing TEMPERANCE, for anstaace, or
•" FORTITUDE, to God, would have be-ea too gros-s, and
" too visible even to eyes that prejudice had "blinded -the
" most. But that, of .ascribing justice and goodness to
t; him, according tto our .notions of them, might be better
" covered, and was enough for his purpose, though NOT

LESS REALLY AJ3SUKD."

Which shall we most admire : His knowledge or his
ingenuity ? Or shall -we &How >ihe advice -of kis .motto,
and Wonder &t nothing*."

Whea men contemplate -what ithey call moral virtue,
or the attributes of humanity, they divide them into two
classes, perfectly distinct from one another. In the first
ere comprised those which belong to man under the idea
of a free intelligent being, such as goodness and just ice .:
in the second, those which belong to him under the idea
of a creature of his own imperfect species, such as tern-
ferance and fortitude. The first belong £o all free in
telligent beings ; the latter, only to sucli a being as man ;
those arise out 'of the nature of free intelligence, and so
are common to all : these, from the imperfections of a
very inferior creature, aad so -are peculiar to humanity;
for we easily .conceive a higher Order of free intelligences,
in which die moral virtues of the second class have no
place. They are superior to the impressions of fear, and
«o have no occasion to exert fortitude-: they #re re*-
moved from the temptation of excess, and so ihave no
room for the exercise of temperance. Now when
CLAJ&KJE^ or any other Divine, had said, that the moral
attributes ere the same in God as m our ideas., What
attributes could ithey possibly mean but those of the first
class ; those which belong to beings under the idea of
free intelligences? STUPID as his Lordship is pleased
to make divines, they could aever blander at such a rate
<as to conceive that those virtues or moral attributes,
which proceed from the imperfection of the creature,

* Nil (idmirari.

M 4 might

168 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

might belong in any manner to the Creator, whom they
supposed to be all perfect. They held, with his Lord
ship, and they will hold without him, that the great God
is infinitely wise and powerful. Were they then in any
danger to give him temperance, which implied his being
obnoxious to Jolly ; or fortitude, which argued im-
puissance? Infinite wisdom, therefore, and infinite
power, exclude from God the very ideas of temperance
and fortitude. But do infinite wisdom and infinite
power exclude from God the ideas of goodness and
justice ? On the contrary, his Lordship, as we shall see
presently, is reduced to the poor shift of owning goodness
and justice to be contained in infinite wisdom and power.

At present I leave his Lordship's admirers to their

own meditations on their master's IPSE DIXIT, That t/ic

ascribing goodness and justice to God is NO LESS

REALLY ABSURD than the ascribing temperance and

fortitude to him.

— But CLARKE contracted the generality of the
assertion, to serve a purpose. I think he did: and for
one of the best purposes in the world, that of COMMON*
SENSE. Had his Lordship been pleased to contract
himself on the same principle, he had passed, perhaps,
for a greater philosopher ; though he had certainly been
a less writer.

But then, if you ask, What purpose his Lordship had
to serve, when he used the equivocal word ALL (which
may signify either all of one kind, or all of every kind),
where he observes, Clarke holds, that ALL the moral
attributes are the same in God, £c. ? I answer, it was
to give himself the poor pretence to say, that Clarke
afterwards contracted his generality, or, in other words,
contradicted himself.

A third objection against the moral attributes is,
" That PASSIONS and AFFECTIONS mix with our good-
ness and justice; which therefore cannot be supposed to
be the same in kind with God's ; though our wisdom
and power, with which no passions or affections mix,
must be the same in hind with his."

Were passion and affection inseparable from human
goodness and justice, the objection might seem to have
gome force; indeed, not much even then. But how

miserable

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 169

miserable must the objection appear to those who see, as
all men may, that they are separable ? Separable,
I mean, in practice as well as speculation. The true
idea of human goodness and justice excludes all passion
and affection. What binders then our rising, from that
idea, to divine goodness and justice, any more than our
rising, from the idea of human wisdom and power, to the
divine wisdom and power; and from perceiving, that as
well the moral, as the natural attributes, are the same
in kind, both in God and man ?

But, this is not all that may be said in favour of our
adequate idea of God's moral attributes, when com
pared with the natural, For though passion mixes not
with the human attributes of wisdom and po.ver, yet
something else does, much more difficult to be separated
than PASSIOX, from the human attributes of goodness
and justice, I mean the INSTRUMENTALITY OF MATTER.
We can conceive nothing of human POWER w?itiiout the
use of such an instrument : yet this, by his Lordship's
own confession, does not hinder us from rising from the
idea of our own wisdom and power, to the wisdom and
power of God ; and from seeing that they are the same
in kind. Why then should the other foreign combination
hinder us from seeing that goodness and justice are the
same in kind ?

Still further: The MANNER of knowing in God, on
which depends his natural attribute of WISDOM, is con
fessedly different from what it is in man ; and, at the
same time, is a thing of which we have no conception :
yet this, according to his Lordship's account, does not
hinder our attaining to an adequate idea of divine zcis-
dom, though it rises from what we see of the human.

How happens it then, that, in both these cases, not
withstanding the foreign mixture of the instrumentality
of matter, and the manner of knowing, we attain an
adequate idea of God's wisdom and power? His Lord
ship will tell you, it is by separating what is foreign irom
what is native to the ideas of wisdom and power. And
shall not I have as much credit with You, when I tell
you we acquire an adequate idea of God's goodness and
justice, by separating from the idea of hum, n goodftess
and justice the foreign mixture of passion and ajjectio; 9

Put

170 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II;

But his Lordship has a greater quarrel than all this
with the moral attributes. They ^ive rise to embarrassed
questions, dishonourable to God, and mischievous to
religion.

" As they [the. Divines] modelled God's government
" on a human plan, so they conceived his perfections,
" moral as well as physical, by human ideas. — Thus God
" was said to be the FIRST GOOD : but then the general
" notion or abstract idea of this good was not only taken
" from human goodness, but was considered too with
" little or no other relation than to man — A question
" arose therefore on these hypotheses, How could ertl
At> come into a system of tc-kich God was the author?
" — this question made a further hypothesis necessary;
" another first God, another ooetenial and coequal prin-
" ciple, was introduced to solve it ; a first cause of all
" evil, as the other was of all good"

The false representation of this fact I reserve for another
occasion : the false inference from it is what I now pro
pose to consider.

Bis Lordship supposes, that the notion of God's
moral at tributes gave birth to an insoluble question
concerning the origin of evil] and that this occasioned
the invention of the mischievous hypothesis of the two
principles. Who would have suspected all this evil to
arise from the FIRST GOOD! Yet so it was; and there
fore the notion of such a GOOD must be false; or, at
least, very hurtful.

i . As to the first, if his Lordship's inference be right,
it will unsettle all useful knowledge ; because there is no
great principle, either in physics, or in natural theology,
but which, if we be not on our guard, and wise enough
to stop at the extent of our ideas, will lead us into inex
tricable einbarras: as one might instance in a point that
arises out of both these sciences — The agreement between
free-will and prescience. This is a well-known case :
und as one of the principal designs of this VIEW is to
illustrate his Lordship's great talents, I chose it before
any other, because he pretends to untie this knot, which
hath so long kept the learned world in tangled.

" Our ideas (says he) of divine intelligence and wis-
" doin may be neither fantastical nor jfalse, and yet

" Gods

Lett II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 171

" God's MANNER of knowing may be so different from
" ours, that fore-knowledge, as we call it improperly in
" him may be consistent with the contingency of events ;
" although that which we call properly fore- knowledge
" /// vur$ti-:>2S) be not so."

I liave two ov three remarks to make on these words. •
Our i-'Jcao of God's moral attributes, his goodness and
justice, he wsks& fantastical and false, on account of
difficulties aris"^ • em: yelGotfs^natural attri
butes, his intelligence and wislom, may, he says, be
neither fantastic-ill nor fake, though a difficulty as
great arises from them; natnelv, the apparent discor
dancy between free-wilt and prescience.

My second remark is, that his solution is more fantas
tic and false than the wildest chimera of school-metaphy
sics. The difficulty in reconciling God's prescience to
man's free-will does not arise from our ignorance in God's

MANNER OF KNOV/ING, but fl'Oin God's ACTUAL
KNOY/LEDCE.

My third remark is, that his Lordship, who is here so

penetrating, that he can easily reconcile prescience and

Jree-will, is yet, in another place, so cloudy, that he

cannot see how an equal providence and Jree agency

may stand together*."

My last remark is (and it rises out of the foregoing)
that where Religion is not concerned, his Lordship sees
no difficulties in any part of trie system of creation : but
as soon as ever Religion appears, then difficulties start
up by dozens.

Of this, take an instance, from the case in hand. Our
ideas of God's moral attributes, he says, must needs be
false, because the conceiving of them by human goodness
and justice leads to the question of the origin of evil,
considered morally. Well. And does not the con
ceiving of Geophysical attributes, by human wisdom
and power, lead to the question of the origin of evil,
considered naturally ? Yet our ideas of the physical
attributes are neither false nor fantastical. But to this,
his Lordship replies, Evil, considered naturally, is not
real, but apparent only. Why so? Because it contri
butes to the greater good of the whole. May not the
* See Letter iv.

same

172 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett IT.

.same thing be said of evil, considered morally ? Nay,
hath it not been actually said, and proved too, on the
same principles? It follows then, that they are either
both real, or b&ih fantastic.

In a word, the truth is no more than this, Presumptu
ous man knows not where to stop. He would penetrate
even to the arcana of the Godhead.

" For fools rush in, where angels fear to tread."

And this impious humour it was which gave birth to the
absurd hypothesis of TWO PRINCIPLES. But is the folly
to be charged upon our idea of the moral attributes ?
Ridiculous ! We see its cause is in vanity and self-con
ceit; passions that operate alike on ail principles.

2. As to his Lordship's second inference, that this idea
is at least productive of much mischief, and therefore it
would be better to have none at all ; let me observe, that
the idea of God's very existence is productive of mis^
chief, even all the mischiefs of superstition. Is it there
fore better to be without a God ? Who, besides his
Lordship, would say so*? Why then should we think
it better to be without the idea of the moral attributes,
even though the evils- it produced were necessary ? But
that is not the case. They are casual only : the issue of
pride and presumption; which this idea does not at ali
influence.

3- HOWEVER, these moral attribu tex, if not hurtful,
are USELESS 5 and this is his next cavil. " Infinite
" wisdom and power (says his Lordship) have made
u things as they are: how goodness mid just ice required
ic they should be made is neither cor am judicc, nor to
" any rational purpose to enquire,'3 To inquire how
the universe of things should be made, serves indeed to
no reasonable purpose. But to inquire concerning our
own state and condition in this universe, is either coram
judice, or we were sent into the world to stare about us,
and pass judgment upon nothing. His Lordship's so
phistry seems to confound two things that common sense
has always distinguished ; our own business from other
- When the king holds a bed of justice, 'tis not for

* He indeed says, he had rather bean Atheist t. than acknowledge the
Christian Theology; and we may believe him.

every

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 17.!

every particular to inquire into all his measures : but
every particular who is summoned to attend the court, is
much concerned to know how he himself shall be dealt
with. His Lordship, indeed, is ready to say, We are not
summoned ; that is, we are not accountable creatures*
But this is begging the question.

Again, to inquire, much more to prescribe how things
should be made, in any particular system, has all the
folly, presumption, and impiety, which his Lordship
charges upon it : because the parts having a relation to
the whole, an all-wise Architect makes them in conformity
to that whole, of which we know nothing ; and therefore
our only conclusion should be, that the part we do know
is constituted for the best. But it is another thing to say
(which is all that Divines have said, how differently soever
his Lordship is pleased to represent the matter) that God
will act equitably with his rational creation, by distri
buting good and evil to them according to their deserts ;
because this does not depend upon any whole, of which
we know nothing, but on his attributes of goodness and
justice, of which we know enough to determine with cer
tainty concerning his final dealing with men. To pass
our judgment here is so far from folly or impiety, that
not to do it would be stupidity or hypocrisy. To call this
proceeding, as his Lordship docs, the patching or botching
up one syste.n with another, is a gross misrepresentation,
It is fairly taking in the whole, to determine concerning
the destination of the parts.

AT LENGTH, he ends just where he set out, That we
have xo IDEAS of the moral attributes at all. " Upon
" the whole matter (says he) we may conclude safely
" from error, and in direct opposition to CLARKE, that
" goodness and justice in God cannot be conceived,
" without Manifest presumption and impiety, to be
" the same as in the ideas tee frame of these per*
" feet ions when ice consider them in mtn, or when we
" reason about them abstractedly in themselves', but
" that in the supreme Governor of the World they are
" something TRANSCENDENT, and of which we cannot
"< make any true judgment, nor argue with any certainty
*' about them," And in this, his Lordship tells us he is
justified by the authority of St. PAUL and Dr. BARROW.

These

1 74 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. It

These two great Divines (says he) are on my side*—
Who would have thought of two such honourable Sup
porters for his Lordship's atchievements ? One thing
I have observed, which may. be worth reflecting on ;
a strange propensity in Freethinkers to mistake their
enemies for their friends ; and as strange a propensity in
the Clergy to mistake their friends for their enemies. The
turn is odd enough on both sides ; and, at first view, seems
a little mysterious ; when, perhaps, there may be no more in
it than this, — Free-thinkers have invented this trick, to
amuse the Clergy, in order to kindle their suspicions, and
inflame their jealousy against their best friends : and,
unhappily, the Clergy have, now and then, fallen into
the snare.

But, after what has passed, who would expect that the
leather-dressing Pontiff] of all men, should have been
thought worthy to support tbejirst philosophy ! What
has St. PAUL done at last to deserve this honour? —
Why, in answer to the objections against God's dispensa
tions in the religious world, the Apostle refers us, " for
" entire satisfaction, to the incomprehensible wisdom of
" God, who frequently in the course of his providence
" ordereth things in methods transcending our abilities to
" discover or trace." This solution, which is here ex
tolled for its great modesty, is referred to, in another
place, for its greater IMPUDENCE. It may be cither,
just as his Lordship is in humour; who, notwithstanding
his long study of LOCKE, seems totally to have lost all
ideas of moral modes. • How else was it possible, after
having treated the whole body of mankind in the manner
he has done, he should gravely tell his friend, "• That
" few men, he believes, have CONSULTED others both
li living and the dead, with LESS PRESUMPTION, and
" in a GREATER SPIRIT OF DOCILITY, than he has
" done*.'5 I sometimes thought a word was wrong
printed ; and that for consulted, we should read, insult
ed; for in a great man, there is no presumption, what
ever meanness there may be, in insulting his inferiors.
And as for his docility, that will hardly be disputed, it
being certain that from the Author, whom he has insulted
he has condescended to steal more.

* Imrocluctory Letter to Mr. Pope.

But

Lett. If.] BO LINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 175

But St. PAUL says, rce must have recourse to the
incomprehensible wisdom of God. In good time. But
how does this prove that, in Paul's opinion, we have no
adequate idea of the moral attributes, unless the quality
of an agent, and his action, be one and the same thing?
You, Sir, have an adequate conception, I am sure, of
our gracious Monarch's goodness SfiAjustict', but you
have a very imperfect comprehension of several of his
State-measures. I frequently attempted to illustrate my
reasoning on divine matters from examples in human
rulers. This is a ticklish point. And therefore I have
been very careful that those regal acts, by which I would
illustrate the divine, be not such as proceed from the
weakness and imperfections of humanity. If they be,
the instance is impertinent, and serves for nothing but to
mislead us. This was the more carefully to be observed,
because writers have carried these illustrations into much
abuse. Ami nobody more than this noble Lord, so fa
mous as he is likely to become with posterity, for every
species of false reasoning.

Dr. BARROW, I presume, will stand his Lordship in
no better stead than St. Paul. " As the dealings of
" every wise man (says the Doctor) are sometimes found-
" ed upon maxims, and admit justifications not obvious
" or penetrable by vulgar conceit, so may God act ac-
c cording to rules of wisdom and justice, which it may
" be quite impossible by our faculties to apprehend, or
" with our means to descry. As there are natural modes
" of being and operation, so there may be prudential
" and moral modes of proceeding, far above our reach,
" peculiar objects of divine wi-dcm not to be understood
",by any creature, especially by creatures who stand ia
" the lowest form of intelligence ; one remove from,
" beasts. la fine, those rules of equity and experience
," which we in oiir transactions with one another do use,
" if tLey be applied to the dealings of God, will be found
" very incongruous or deficient, the case being vastly
<c altered from that infinite distance in nature and state
" between God and us, and from the immense difference
u which his relations towards us tuve iron; o'.;r relations
" to one anoiher." What now has all this (which re
lates ca;y lo the i^wmp^chziioijic nature of God's

providence}

176 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. It,

providence) to do with our inadequate ideas of his
moral attributes? At least, if his Lordship will con
tend, that the man who thinks God's providence incom
prehensible must needs think our ideas of his moral
attributes inadequate, he must go a step further, and
confess, that Barrow supposed our ideas of the natural
attributes to be inadequate likewise, for he puts both on
the same footing. As there are NATURAL modes of
leing and operation (says the Doctor), so there may
Ic prudential and MORAL modes of proceeding far
above our reach. But as this would be going too far,
farther than the first philosophy will allow of, I suppose
he would be content to give up this quotation from Bar
row, as nothing to the purpose.

AT LAST, and when you would least expect it, com
mon-sense and common-sentiments return. And God's
moral attributes, after much ado, are allowed to be in
Nature. " Where religions" (says his Lordship) " which
" pretend to be revealed, prevail, a new character of
" God's goodness arises — an artificial goodness, which
" stands often in the place of the NATURAL." And this,
after he had so often told us, that we have no adequate
Idea of any goodness at all." Well, but as aukwardly
as God's natural goodness comes, and, in every sense,
ci posteriori, yet it comes, and deserves to be made
welcome. " All the knowledge (says he) that God
" has given us the means to acquire, and therefore all he
" designed we should have of his physical and MORAL
" nature and attributes, is derived from his works > and
" from the TEN OUR OF THAT PROVIDENCE by which
" he governs them." You will observe the words — the
tenour of that providence 1 have detected the so
phistry of them before, where I have stated the meaning
of the terms, God's work.*. I bid you observe them
now, to judge of the following climax (if I may so call it),
or walk down stairs. " The wisdom is not so often dis-
" cernible by us [in God's works] as the power of God,
" nor the goodness as the wisdom." As scanty and
slender as the knowledge is of God's moral attributes,
which his Lordship here allows us to collect from his
>vorks, yet it flatly contradicts what his system had obliged
him over and over to maintain ; particularly in the fol-
6 lowing

Lett. IL] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 177

lowing words — Of divine goodness and divine justice
(says his Lordship in the person of Anaxagoras) / am
unable to frame any adequate, notions, from God's
tvorks.

This mock-concession is again repeated, and as care
fully guarded. " By natural theology (says his Lordship)
" we" are taught to acknowledge and adore the infinite
" wisdom and power of God, which he has manifested
" to us in some degree or other in every part, even the
" most minute, of his Creation. By that too, we are
" taught to ascribe goodness and justice to him,
c< wherever he intended we should so ascribe them,
" that is, wherever either his works, or the dispensations
" of his providence, do as NECESSARILY communicate
" these notions to our minds, as those of wisdom and
" power are communicated to us, in the whole extent of
" both."

What his Lordship would have you infer from this is,
that we are NO WH^ERE taught to ascribe goodness and
justice to God ; since the dispensations of his pro
vidence do NO WHERE, in his Lordship's opinion, NECES
SARILY communicate these notions. But allow him
his premisses, that neither God's works nor dispensations
do NECESSARILY communicate to us the notions of God's
goodness and justice ; Would his conclusion folknv, that
therefore we are no where taught in these works and dis--
pensations to ascribe those attributes unto him ? Suppose
these works and dispensations did only PROBABLY com
municate these notions to our minds ; will not this pro
bability teach us to ascribe goodness and justice to him ?
God hath so framed the constitution of things, that man,
throughout his whole conduct in life, should be necessarily
induced to form his judgment on appearances and pro
bable arguments. Why then not in this, as well as the
rest? or rather, why riot in this, above the rest, if so be
that indeed God had not (as I have shewn- he hath)
necessarily communicated these notions ? — But still, what
is this to our adequate idea of the moral attributes, the
point in question? God's not necessarily communicat
ing affects only the reality, not the precision of the idea.
All therefore we learn by the observation, which would
thus put the change upon us, is, that his Lordship has a

VOL. XII. N verj

778 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IL

very strong inclination, that God should have neither
goodness not justice, so far as they carry with them any
DISPOSITION to r cicar d or piufixh. For as to the at
tributes themselves, divested of their consequence ; and
undisturbed by our IMPIOUS IMITATION*, he has little
or no quarrel with them. His Lordship certainly never
intended to teach the common reader more of the secrets
of his philosophy than what NECESSARILY arises from
his professions. But to make God treat mankind in this
manner, communicate to their minds the appearance of
attributes -which he has not, is drawing an image of the
Deity from his Lordship's own likeness ; the very fault
he so much censures in Divines. But if it must needs be
that God is to be represented either after them, or after
his Lordship, I should chuse to have the Clergy's God,
though made out of no better stuff' than ARTIFICIAL
THEOLOGY, because this gives him goodness &nd[ justice,
rather than his Lordship's God, which has neither, al
though composed of the more refined materials of the
FIRST PHILOSOPHY. In the mean time, I will not deny
but He may be right in what he says, That men conceive
of the Deity, more humano ; and that his Lordship's
God and the Clergy's God are equally faithful copies of
themselves.

In a word, if God teaches, whether clearly or obscure
ly, he certainly intended we should learn. And what
we get even by appearances, is real knowledge, upon his
Lordship's own principles. For if truth be, as he assures
us it is, of so precarious a nature as to take its being from
our own system, it must be real as far as it appears.
" Our knowledge (says this great philosopher) is so
te dependent on our owrn system, that. a great part of it
" would not be knowledge perhaps, but error in any
" other/'

It is thus he involves himself in perpetual contradic
tions: and it is always thus, when men dispute (for be
lieve they cannotf) against common notices and the most

* " OUR OBLIGATION TO IMITATE ( '" ~-D, IS A FALSE AND
PROFANE DOCTIUNIJ."

| Hear what he himself says of FREE-WILL. The free-will of
man no one can chny he has, without LYING, or renouncing his iit-
Juitac knowledge,

obvious

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 179

obvious truths ; such as liberty of will ; the certainty of
knowledge; and this, which, I reckon, obtrudes itself
upon us as forcibly as either, the MORAL ATTRIBUTES OF
THE DEITY.

But the game is now on foot. Let us follow7 closely.
We have unravelled him through all his windings ; and
we may soon expect to see him take shelter in the thick
cover of God's incomprehensible nature; and rather than
allow, more than in jest, the moral attributes of the
Deity, ready to resolve all his attributes, both natural
and moral, into one INDEFINITE PERFECTION.

But soft — Not yet — We must come to it by degrees
and regular advances. First, the moral attributes are
to be resolved into the natural.

— " If they [the natural and moral attributes] may
" be considered separately, as we are apt to consider them ;
" and if the LATTER, and every thing we ascribe to these,
" are not to be RESOLVED rather into the former ;
" into his infinite intelligence, wisdom, and power." It
is yet, we see, but a question ; and that only, whether
the moral attributes are not to be resolved into the
natural. In the next passage the matter is determined.
" I think" (and what he thinks, he holds it but reason
able we should all think) " that the moral attributes of
" the Supreme Being are absorded in his wisdom; that
" we should consider them only as different modifica-
" tions of this physical attribute."

We are not yet near the top. However, before we go
any higher, let us set together his INCONSISTENCIES,
as they appear in this situation. Sometimes the ideas
of divine wisdom are better determined than those of
divine goodness : sometimes we have no ideas at all
of divine goodness : and sometimes again (as in the place
before us) the divine goodness is the same as wisdom,
and therefore, doubtless, the idea of it is as well defined.
Now, of all these assertions, to which will his Lordship
stick ? To which, do you ask ? To none of them, longer
than they will stick to him : and straggling, undisciplined
principles, picked up at adventures, are not apt to stick
long to any side : as soon as they begin to incline towards
the enemy, he has done with them. — Come, if you will
needs have it, you shall. The secret is this. The attri-

N 2 butei

i So A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II

butes are mere NAMES; and there is an end of them.
All that remains, worth speaking of, is one undefined
ETERNAL REASON i and so the farce concludes.

" The moral ATTRIBUTES (says he) are barely NAMES*
that we give to various manifestations of the infinite wis
dom of one simple iincomponnded being."

" Of divine goodness and divine justice I am unable
" to frame any adequate notions ; and instead of con-
" eeiving such distinct moral attributes in the Supreme
" Being, we ought, perhaps, to conceive -nothing more
" than this, that THERE ARE VARIOUS APPLICATIONS

<; OF ONE ETERNAL REASON, WHICH IT BECOMES U&
" LITTLE TO ANALYZE INTO ATTRIBUTES."

To this miserable refuge is his Lordship reduced, to
avoid divine justice. But why, you say, did he not speak
out at first, and end his quarrel with the moral attributes
at once? Your humble servant for that. Barefaced
NATURALISM has not such charms as to make her re^
ceivcd when and wherever she appears-. There is need
of much preparation, and not a little disguise, before you
can get her admitted even to what is called good company.
But then, after he had resolved to speak out, Why, you
ask, does lie stop again in his career ; and, when his
premisses are general against all attributes, his conclu
sion is particular, against the moral only? Not without
reason, I assure you. He had need of the natural
attributes, to set up against the moral : and therefore
had himself analyzed this eternal reason into the speci
fic attributes of wisdom and power. But when he saw
his adversaries might, by the same way, analyze it into
goodness and justice, he then thought fit to pick a quar
rel with his own method : but it was to be done obliquely:
and hence arises all this embarras and tergiversation. lie
would willingly, if his Reader be so pleased, analyze the
eternal reason into wisdom and power : but there he
would stop : and leave the other side of the eternal rea-
$on, unanalyzed : and if goodness and justice should
chance to start out, he has a trick to resolve and absorb
them into wisdom and power, as only different modifica
tions of the physical attributes. But if this revolts
his Readers, and they expect equal measure; then, rather
than give them back the goofaiess and justice which he

baa

Lett II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 181

has been at all this pains to proscribe, he will throw wis
dom and power after them, and resolve all into the ONE

ETERNAL REASON.

Bashful NATURALISM has now thrown aside her veil;
and is, we see, ready to face down and defy her rival ;
whom till now she was content to counterfeit. Give me
leave, therefore, to repress this last effort of her insolence
by another passage from the Sermons quoted once or
twice already.

— " We have been told, and with airs of superior
41 knowledge, that these pretended attributes, as they are
4t commonly specified, and distinguished into natural
" and moral, are a mere human fiction ; invented, by
" aid of analogy from the actions, passions, and qualities
" observable in man : and that the simple nature of
" Deity is one uniform perfection; of which, infinity
" being the base, we can have no distinct idea or con-
" ception.

" To this it will be sufficient to reply, that it is indeed

44 true, that these specific attributes, from which we de-

41 duce all our knowledge of the nature and will of God,

" are formed on analogy, and bear relation to ourselves.

" But then we say such attributes are not, on that ac-

" count, the less real or essential. The light of the SUN

" is not, in the orb itself, what we see it in the RAINBOW.

" There it is one candid, uniform, perfect blaze of glory ;

*' here, we separate its perfection into the various attri-

{f butes of red, yellow, blue, purple, and what else the

" subtle optician so nicely distinguishes. But still the

" solar light is not less real in the rainbow, where its

" rays become thus untwisted, and each differing thread

41 distinctly seen in its effect, than while they remained

( united and incorporated with one another in the Sun.

4 Just so it is with the divine nature : it is one simple

" individual perfection in the Godhead himself; but when

' refracted and divaricated, in passing through the

c medium of the human mind, it becomes power, justice,

1 mercy; which are all separately and ADEQUATELY

4 represented to the understanding*." But that his

Lordship so frequently discards his own principles, I

11 The Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, in a course
of Sermons at Lincoln's Inn. Vol. IX. pp. 41, 42 of this Edition.

N 3 should

182 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

should hope he would submit to this illustration, since he
owns that we see the Deity in a reflected, not in a direct
light.

It is a true light then and not a false : and the know
ledge it conveys is real, not fantastic : for mirrors are not
wont to reflect the species of the mind's visions, but things
exterior and substantial. To turn us, therefore, from
God's attributes, (though the indirect, yet the well-
defined, image of him) because they discover something
to us we may not like, a HELL and a FUTURE JUDGMENT ;
to turn us, I say, from these, to the undefined eternal
reason, is doing like certain French philosophers, who,
when they quarrelled with Newton's theory of light and
colours, contrived to break the prism by which it was
demonstrated.

And now, Sir, to conclude my long letter. Who is
there that deserves the name of MAN, and will not own,
that they are the MORAL ATTRIBUTES of the Deity which
make him AMIABLE; just as the natural attributes
make him revered and adorable? — What is his Lordship's
quarrel with the GOD of MOSES and PAUL, but that he
is made unamiable, and represented without goodness or
justice ? Their God, therefore, he expressly tells us,
shall not be his God. Well then : he has his God to
make. And who would not expect to find him, when
made by such a workman, a God of infinite goodness
and justice. No such matter: These qualities come not
out of his Lordship's hands ; so, cannot enter into the
composition of his God: They are barely NAMES that
men give to various manifestations of the infinite
wisdom of one simple uncompounded Being. The
pretended want of them in the God of the Je\\ s afforded
his Lordship a commodious cavil; for he had RELIGION
to remove out of his way : but when he came to erect
NATURALISM in its stead, it had been very inconvenient
to give them to his own idol.

Honest Plutarch, though a priest, was as warm an
jenemy to PRIESTCRAFT as his Lordship. He derives
all the evils of superstition from men's not acquiring the
idea of a God infinitely good and just. And proposes
this knowledge as the only cure for superstition. This
is consistent. But what would the ancient World have

thought

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 183

thought of their Philosopher, had his remedy, after hunt
ing for it through a hundred volumes, been a God without
any goodness and justice at all.

NATURE tells us, that the thing most desirable is the
knowledge of a God, whose goodness and justice gives to
every man according to his works. His LORDSHIP tells
us, that REASON or NATURAL RELIGION discovers to us
no such God. Now, if both speak truth, how much are
we indebted to REVELATION ! Which, when natural
Religion failed us, brings us to the knowledge of a God
infinitely good and just ; and gives us an adequate idea of
those attributes ! I say no more than his Lordship lias
confessed — Christianity, says he, DISCOVERS the love
of God to man\ his infinite JUSTICE and GOODNESS.

Is this a blessing to be rejected ? His Lordship has
no room to say so, since the discovery is made in that
very way, in which, upon his own principles, it only could
be made. He pretends, " We have no other natural
way of coming to the knowledge of God, but from his
Works. By these, he says, we gain the idea of his
physical attributes; and if there be any thing in his
works which seems to contradict those attributes, 'tis only
seeming. For as men advance in the knowledge of na
ture, 'the difficulties vanish. It is not so, he says, with
regard to the moral attributes. There are so many
phenomena which contradict these, and occasion diffi
culties never to be cleared up, that they hinder us from
acquiring an adequate idea of the moral attributes"
Now admitting all this to be true, (for generally, his
Lordship's assertions are so extravagant, that they will
not even admit a supposition of their truth, though it be
only for argument's sake) What does it effect but this,
additional credit to Revelation? The physical diffi
culties clear up as we advance in our knowledge of
Nature, and we advance in proportion to our diligence
and application. But the moral difficulties never clear up,
because they rise out of the wliole system of God's moral
dispensation ; which is involved in clouds and darkness,
impenetrable to mortal sight : and all the force of human
wit alone will never be able to draw the veil. The
assistance must come from another quarter. It must
come, if it comes at all, from the Author of the Dispense

M 4 tiorj,

184 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II.

tion. Well ; Revelation hath drawn this veil, and so
removed the darkness which obstructed our attaining an
adequate idea of the moral attributes. Shall we yet
stand out' And, when we are brought hither upon his
Lordship's own principles, still withhold our assent ?
Undoubtedly you must. Beware (says he) of a pretended
revelation. \Vhy so ? " Because the religion of nature
" is perfect and absolute : and therefore revelation can
" teach nothing but what religion hath already taught."
Strange ! Why, Revelation teaches those moral attri
butes ; which you, my Lord, owrn, natural religion
does not teach — Here the dialogue breaks off.

" Die aliquem sodes, die, Quintiliane, colorem ;
*c Hasremus — "

And here, we are like to stick. His Lordship leaves us
in a riddle. Will you have the solution ? It is foolish
enough ; as such kind of things generally are. But if
you kept your good humour, which, I confess, is difficult
amidst all these provocations of impiety, it is enough to
make you laugh. I told you before, that his Lordship
borrowed all his reasoning against Revelation from such
as Tindal, Toland, Collins, Chubb, and Morgan. This
solemn argument particularly, of the PERFECTION OF
NATURAL RELIGION, and the superseded use of Revela
tion, he delivers to us just as he found it in Tindal. Now
Tindal, who held, that natural religion taught both the
moral attributes and a future state, had some pretence
for saying that it was perfect and absolute. But w hat
pretence has his Lordship to say it after him, who holds
that natural religion taught neither one nor the other ?
The truth is, he refused no arms against REVELATION ;
and the too eager pursuit of this his old enemy through
thick and thin has led him into many of these scrapes.

I have now considered all I could find urged by the
Noble Writer in support of his great principle of NO

ADEQUATE IDEAS OF GOD'S MORAL ATTRIBUTES: Oil

which the whole system of NATURALISM is, and must
be, founded : and you see to what this all amounts : If
I should say, to just nothing, I shall speak more favour
ably of it than it deserves ; for it tends, as I have shewn
^ou; in many instances, to confirm the great TRUTH it is
1 brought

Lett. II.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 185

brought to overthrow. And now what I proposed for
the subject of this second Letter is pretty well exhausted.
My first was employed in giving you a specimen of his
TEMPER; This undertakes to explain his SYSTEM; and
I reserve the two next for a display of his marvellous
TALENTS; though, it is true, I have a little anticipated
the subject. For you cannot but have conceived already
a very uncommon idea of his abilities, on seeing him use
TINDAL'S ARGUMENTS against Revelation, andjfor the
perfection of natural religion, along with his OWN-
PRINCIPLES of no moral attributes and no future
state. The first of which principles makes one entire
absurdity of all he borrows from Tindal against Revela
tion ; and the second takes away the very pretence for
perfection in natural religion.

His Lordship's friend, SWIFT, has somewhere or other
observed, that no subject in all nature but religion could
have advanced Toland and Asgill into the class of re
putable authors. Another of his friends seems to think
that no subject but religion could have sunk his Lordship
so far below it: IF EVER LORD BOLINGBROKE TRIFLES
(says Pope), IT WILL BE WHEN HE WRITES ON DIVI
NITY *. But this is the strange fate of authors, whether
with wit, or without, when they chuse to write on certain
subjects. For it is with authors, as with men : Who
can guess which vessel was made for honour, and
which for dishonour, when sometimes one and the same
is made for both? Even this choice vessel of the FIRST
PHILOSOPHY, his Lordship's sacred pages, may be put
to very different uses, according to the different tempers
in which they chance to find his few admirers and the
public; like the china Jordan in the DUNCIAD, which
one hero p — d into, and another carried home for his
head-piece. I am, §c.

LETTER III.

LET me first claim your thanks for sparing you so long
.on the chapter of Lord BOLINGBIIOKE; and then ask,

* Pope's Works, Vol. ix. Letter xiv.

what

186 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett III.

Wnat you now think of this paper-meteor, which so flames
and sparkles, and, while it kept at distance (like a comet,
traversing the celestial orbs, and domineering over the
established system) drew after it the admiring crowd ;
divided in their opinions between the presage of super
stitious Divines who saw it threaten pestilence and ruin
to the world beneath, and the more philosophic determi
nation of his followers who judged it was to recreate and
revive the dryness and sterility of exhausted nature.

But your love of mankind makes you view7 this strange
phenomenon with horror. Is it for this, you say, that
such a torrent of abuse has been poured out upon every
private character, upon every public order, upon every
branch of learning, and upon every institution of Reli
gion ? — They were not poured out at hazard, for all these
things stood in his way : they were not poured out in
vain, for they are given for arguments, and will, I make
no doubt, be so received.

The wise Quintilian, it is true, has observed, Propriam
MODERATION EM QU/EDAM CAUSER desidcrant. And it
must be confessed, that if ever moderation, or temperance
of expression, became an author, or was well suited to
his discourse, it was when the purpose of his work, like
that of his Lordship's, was to overturn all ESTABLISHED
RELIGION, founded in the belief of a Sovereign Master,
supremely just and good', and all AUTHENTIC LEARN
ING, employed for the defence of such Religion : and, on
their ruins, to erect NATURALISM, instead of real theism,
and a FIRST PHILOSOPHY, instead of real science.
When, I say, a writer had thought fit to insult the com
mon sentiments of mankind on points esteemed so essen
tial to their well-being, common policy as well as common
decency required that it should be done by the most win
ning insinuation and address; and not by calling MADMAN,
KNAVE, FOOL, and BLASPHEMER, every man who would
not take his system upon trust.

But superior geniuses have always thought themselves
above the restraint of rules. Tullij observes that ARCE-
SILAS, fitted by a turbulence of temper to confound the
peace and overturn the established order of things, had
done that mischief in PHILOSOPHY which TIBERIUS

GRACCHUS

Lett. III.] BOLING BROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 187

GRACCHUS had projected in the REPUBLIC*. But his
Lordship, prompted by a nobler ambition, would play
both parts in their turns, and shine an Arcesilas and a
Gracchus too.

His ill success in business made him turn his great
talents from POLITICS to PHILOSOPHY. But he had not
yet mortified that ambition which was always prompting
him to aspire at superiority : and he carried with him that
sufficiency and those resentments which had proved so ill
suited to the cabinets of princes, into the closet of the
philosopher. We may add, that he entered upon letters
in an advanced age ; and this still further vitiated his na
tural temper by an acquired infirmity, to which, as Tully
observes, these untimely adventures are extremely subject.
O¥IMA®EI£ autem homines sets QUAM IXSOLENTES
suit : " You know, says he, how INSOLENT those men
generally are, who come late to their book."

But now having given you my thoughts of Ins Lordship's
assuming temper, it would be unfair not to give you his
oirn. lie had kept, it seems, ill company ; and his natu
ral candour and modesty had beeii hurt by it. But let
him tell his own story: " I grow VERY APT TO ASSUME,
" by conversing so much with ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS,
" who assume much oftener than they prove."

But whatever causes concurred to form this overbear
ing humour, certain it is. that his contempt of others was
become so habitual to him, that it operates where no rea
sonable provocation can be assigned. I have shewn you,
in my first Letter, at what a rate, his disgust to the morals,
and his aversion to the sanctions, of the GOSPEL, disposed
him to treat all who had contributed to propagate or to
support Revelation. But how the honest PAGANS of anti
quity had offended, who, many of them, believed no
more of & future state than himself, is a little hard to
conceive.

Yet PYTHAGORAS, he tells you, was a turbulent
fellow, and a fanatical subverter of States.

Nor did PLATO'S delirious brains secure him from
becoming, on occasion, a paltry cheat, and a mercenary

* Turn exortus est, ut in Optima Rep. Ti. Gracchus qui etiam
perturbaret, sic Arcesilas, qui constitutam Philosophiam everteret.

flatterer.,

iS8 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II L

flattere!*. For almost all his madmen are knaves into
the bargain. But Plato had made himself obnoxious to
lib Lordship, by the blasphemous title he had given to
the First Came ; in which his delirious brains could find
nothing but a FIRST GOOD : so that he was to be stigma
tized as the ringleader of that wicked sect who ascribe
moral attributes to the Deity.

Even SOCRATES, whose glory it was, as Tully assures
us, to take PHILOSOPHY out of the clouds, and bring it
down to dwell amongst cities and men, substituted (in
his Lordship's opinion) fantastic, for real knowledge — -
and entertained and propagated THEOLOGICAL and
METAPHYSICAL notions, which are noty most certainly,
parts of NATURAL THEOLOGY. We understand his
Lordship very well. He means a particular providence
and & future state, the moral attributes of the Deity
and the substantiality of the soul. This apparently is
the fantastic knowledge which makes no part of
natural theology.

Nor could his own SEX EC A, though so serviceable*
to him in his Exile, escape the nickname of THE STOICAL
For : a character indeed, which, in the discourse referred
to at the bottom, Seneca has enabled his follower most
admirably to sustain.

When these Pagan heroes fare no better, who would
be concerned for churchmen? or think much to hear
CYPRIAN called a " liar and a madman ;" JEROM
a surly foal-mouthed bally \ and LPIPHANIUS, an
idiot ?

But now comes on a difficulty indeed. — PAUL and
PLATO bear their crimes in their countenance: The Gos
pel of peace, he tells us, disclosed nothing but murders ;
and the idea of a first Good occasioned all our com
plaints of evil. But what had SCIPIO done, or REGULUS,
to incur his displeasure? They were neither artificial
theologers, nor yet .crazy metaphysicians', but plain,
sober Statesmen. His Lordship's quarrel, we know, is
with DIVINITY in all its forms ; but he professes to ad
mire the moral virtues. And if there be any of higher
dignity than the rest, and in which his Lordship would be

* See his Lordship's tract, intitled, Reflections on Exile.

more

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 189

more desirous to shine, they must needs be CHASTITY
and GOOD FAITH,

" CUT, Pit dor, et Justitiae soror,
" INCORRUPTA Fides" &c. &c.

Yet he wrests all his reading to deprive those two bravo
Romans of their glory ; so nobly earned, and so generously
paid, by the universal voice of all ages. I am not igno
rant of that childish infirmity of our nature, the fondness
of ingrossing to ourselves those shining qualities, with
which we happen to be dazzled; but every one will
acquit his Lordship of so impotent a project : much less
would I suppose him capable of thinking, that SCIPIQ
and REGULUS may be still the great men they have been
accounted, though stained all over with last *fi& perfidy.

It is true, indeed, the new Historian of Great Britain,
another of &esejir$t-phifo.wpky men (for the essence
of the sect consisting in paradox, it doth as well in his
tory as divinity), he, I say, tells us, that it will admit
of a doubt", whether severity of manners alone, and
abstinence from pleasure, can deserve the name of
virtue *. But then he is as singular in his notions of
religion : He holds but two species of it in all Nature,
superstition md fanaticism.: and under one or other of
them, he gives you to undertand t, the whole of Christian
profession is, and ever \vas, included. On the Church
of England, indeed, he is so indulgent, to bestow all
that religion has to give : for when he sets it against
'Popery, it is fanaticism: but as often as it faces about,
and is opposed to the Puritans, it then becomes super
stition ; and this as constantly as the occasions return.

You will say I grow partial to his Lordship, in appear
ing so anxious for his reputation, while Your two favourite
characters lie expiring under his pen. Never fear it.
They have not lived so long to die of a fright. When
his Lordship blusters, we know how to take him down.
Tt is only leading him back to that antiquity he has been
abusing.

Half the work is done to my hands ; and I shall have
only the trouble of transcribing the defence of SCIPIO

* The History of Great Britain, Vol. i. p. 200. 4to, printed at
fcdinb. 1754.
t See his History throughout,

against

igo A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

against his Lordship's suspicions, as I find it in an ex-
postulatory letter to him, on his recent treatment of a

deceased friend.

" The reputation of the first Scipio (says his Lord-
" ship) was not so clear and uncontroverted in PRIVATE
" as in public life • nor was he allowed by all to be a
" man of such severe virtue as he affected, and as that
" age required. Ncrvius was thought to mean him,
" in some verses Gellius has preserved', and VA LERI us
" ANTIAS made no scruple to assert, that, far from
" restoring the fair Spaniard to her family, lie de-
" bauched and kept her*. One would have hoped so
" mean a slander might have slept forgotten in the dirty
" corner of a pedant's \ common-place. And yet we
" see it quoted as a fact by an instructor of kings. Who
" knows but at some happy time or other, when a writer
" wants to prove that real FRIENDSHIP becomes a great
" man as little as real chastity^, this advertisement^
" of yours may be advanced to the same dignity of credit
" with the calumny of Valerius Antias. If it should,
" I would not undertake to dispute the fact on which
61 such an inference might be made ; for, I remember,
" Tully, a great Statesman himself, long ago observed,
" VER.E AMICITI/E difficilUme reperiuntur in Us, qui
" in Republica versantur. — But the words of Naavius
" were these :

" Etiam qui res magnas manus sccpe gessit gloriose,
<k Cuj us fact a viva nuncvigent', qui apud gentes solus
" Freest at : eum suus pater cum pallio uno ab arnica
" abduxit.

<c These obscure verses were, in Gellius 's opinion, the
" sole foundation of Antias's calumny, against the uni-
" vcrsal concurrence of historians ||. And what Gellius
" thought of this historian's modesty and truth, we may
" collect from what he says of him in another place^
" where, having quoted two tribunitial decrees, which,

* P. 204, of the Idea of a Patriot King.

f A. Gellius. | See p. 201, of the Patriot King.

§ Advertisement concerning Mr. Pope, prefixed to the Patriot'
King.

\\ His ego versibus credo addnctum Valcrium Antiatem ADVERSUM
CETE.ROS OMNES scriptores de Sc IP ION is moribus sensisse.

" he

Lett HI.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 191

" he tells us, he transcribed from records [e,v annalmm
" monument is], he adds, that Valerius Antias made
" no scruple to give them the lie in public *. And
" Livy quoting this Antias, for the particulars of a vic-
" tory, subjoins concerning the number slain f, — but
" there is little credit to be afforded this writer,
" who, of all historians, is the most given to amplify.
" And he who will enlarge on one occasion, will diminish
" on another ; for it is the same impotence of temper
" which carries him indifferently to either J."

REGULUS'S virtue falls next under his Lordship's cen
sure : " I know not (says he) whether Balbus would have
" called in question the STORY OF REGULUS. Vid.
" Au. Gellium. It was probably fabulous, in many
" circumstances at least, and there were those amongst
" the Romans who thought it to be so.'' Would not any
one now imagine, by his bringing Au. Gellius again
upon the stage, that there was another Valerius Antias
in reserve, to depose against R EG u L us likewise ? Just the
contrary. The grammarian, in the I\7th chapter of his
Vlth book, confirms the common story, with an addition
of the testimonies of the historians Tubero and Tudttanus.
The truth however is, that his Lordship had his voucher,
though he was shy of producing him. It was the respec
table Mr. TOLAXD ; to whom his Lordship is much in
debted for better things. Amongst the posthumous tracts
of that virtuous writer, there is a Dissertation^ intitled,
The fabulous Death of Atitlus Regulus : in which,
from a fragment of Diodorus Siculus, preserved by
Const ant inus Porphyrogenitus, he endeavours to prove,
against all the Roman writers, with Cicero at their head,
that Regulus did not die in torments, but of mere chagrin.
Toland only denied that Ids virtue was put to so severe a
trial; but this was enough for his Lordship, to call iti
question the whole story ; and to add, that there were
those amongst the ROMANS who thought it to be
fabulous. Unluckily, the Roman writers are unanimous

* V alerius nutcm Antias, contra ha/tc detrctorum memoriam con-
traquc avctoritates veterum annalium — dixit, &c. L. vii. c. lp.

t Scriptori par um jfidci sit, qma in augendo non alias intern-
fcra?ttior est. Lib. xxxvi.

I A Letter to ike Editor of the Letters on the Spirit of Patriotism,
Hie Idea of a Patriot King, 'and the State of Parties, &c.

for

192 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

for the truth of the story. How then shall we account for
his Lordship's assertion: Did he take Diodorus Siculus
for a Latin writer, because he had not seen him in Greek ?
Or did he understand A. Gdlius as quoting Tubero and
1 'uditanus for doubters of the common story?

As we see little reason therefore to dissent from the
general opinion, and much less to join his Lordship against
it, let SCIPIO and REGULUS still preserve their rank in
our esteem and admiration. For as an excellent French
writer, in a letter to his Lordship, well observes, " C'est
etre vertueux que de rendre a la beaute des moeurs
" rhommage d'amour et de respect, qui lui est du/'

Bis Lordship's ambition was uniform and simple : it
was only, as we said, to be at the head of things. As
he comes nearer home, therefore, he is more and more
alarmed. He found his place already occupied by certain
counterfeits and pretenders, who had, somehow or other,
got into the throne of science, and had actually received
homage from the literary world. But these, as it was
fitting, he unmasks and deposes.

" SELDEN, GROTIUS, PUFFEXDORF, and CUMBER-
" LAND (says his Lordship), seem to be great writers, by
" much the same right as he might be called a great
" traveller, who should go from London to Paris by the
" Cape of Good Hope." I can hardly think they took
so large a compass. But let us trust to the proverb : they
and his Lordship will prove it between them : he shews
us a ready road indeed, but it leads to ATHEISM ; where
as, if they take us a little about, they bring us the nearest
ic ay home to RELIGION.

lie professes " a thorough contempt for the whole
" business of the learned lives of SCALIGER, BOCHART,
" PETAVIUS, USHER, and MARSH AM." This was na
tural. He owed them nothing. But those to whom he is
most indebted have no better quarter.

MARCILIUS FICINUS, he calls the best interpreter
of Plato ; but, at the same time, assures us, he was
perfectly delirious. But why, you ask, is Fie hi us the
best interpreter of Plato, since J. Scaliger, who knew
something of the matter, says, that he stript his master
of his purple, and put him on his own beggarly rags ?
For a good reason ; Ficinus taught his Lordship all he

knew

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 193

knew of Platonism. But why is he then perfectly deli-
rious? For a better still: he holds opinion* already
condemned by his Lordship.

His very favourite BARROW, he tells us, " goes on a
" long while begging the question, and talking in a theo-
" logical cant MORE WORTHY OF PAUL than of a man
" like him — flimzy stuff, which a man is obliged to venc^
" when he puts on a black gown and band.'1

LOCKE and NEWTON, he insinuates, were the men:
nay, such is his humility, that he puts himself to school
to Locke. Yet this does not secure his master from being
mighty liable to a PHILOSOPHICAL DELIRIUM. And as
for NEWTON, the APPLICATION of his philosophy is
grown, or growing into some abuse. Would you know
how ? By affording CLARKE and BAXTER the principles
whereby to demonstrate, that the soul is an immaterial
substance. An abuse indeed !

But as for his master — and BACON too, as much as he
admires them, he is not blind to their errors; but
can, without being dazzled, discern SPOTS IN THESE
SUNS.

Before I go any further, I dare venture a vvager that I
know what those spots are. They are, or i am much
mistaken, the stains of faith and the impurities of reve
lation. But let us hear him. . " I can discern a tincture,
" and sometimes more than a tincture, in BACON, of
" those false notions, which we are APT TO IMBIBE as

" MEN, as INDIVIDUALS, as MEMBERS OF SOCIETY,

" and as SCHOLARS. I can discern in LOCKE sometimes

*' ill-abstracted and ill-determined ideas, from which a

" wrong application of words proceeds; and propositions

" to which / can, by no means, assent I contess

" further, that I have been, and still am at a loss, to

" find any appearance of CONSISTENCY in an author,

" who published a COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF

4t ST. PAUL, and atreatise on the REASONABLENESS OF

<f CHRISTIANITY (which he endeavours to prove by fact

* and by argument) AFTER having stated clearly as he

c has done the conditions and measures of historical

' probability; AND AFTER having written as strongly as

" he has done against the abuse of words." Did not I

tell you so !

Vox. XII, O « This

194 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IIL

" This SUN'S sick too ;

" Shortly he'll be an EARTH ;'*

as the poet has it, in his description of the pestilence at
Thebes ; not more fatal to great cities than this bloated
vapour of & first philosophy, which mimics, and, as it
reflects, defiles this SUN of science, and turns Nature into
prodigy;

Et SOLEM geminum et duplices se ostendere THEBAS, &c.

But his Lordship's account of his other luminary,
BACON, is still more extraordinary — He thinks he dis
cerns in him a tincture, and more than a tincture of
those false notions, which ice are apt to imbibe as

MEN, CIS INDIVIDUALS, ttS MEMBERS OF SOCIETY, and

as SCHOLARS. — That is, as men, we are apt to think
we have a SOUL ; as individuals, we are in expectation
of a FUTURE STATE; as members of society, we are in
clined to reverence the ESTABLISHED RELIGION ; and as
.scholars, we are taught to reason, and not to HARANGUE.
If any of his Lordship's followers can give a better ac
count, of this oracular passage, I am very ready to resign,
the office of his commentator.

In truth, his Lordship deals by RELIGION, and its
advocates, as a certain French author, I have read, does
by ALCHEMY and the hermetic philosophers; he brings
almost every great name into the number; and, after
having entertained his reader much at their expence, con
cludes each various eulogy alike, — " Now his folly was
" in hoping to extract COLD from baser metals ;" just as
the folly of all his Lordship's alchemists is the hope of
bettering human nature by GRACE,

You now, Sir, may understand, how well the disposition
of his mind and temper was fitted to his system. It often
happens, that men who arraign religion, have been first
arraigned by it ; and their defiance of truth is only a re
prisal upon conscience. Under these circumstances, it
is no wonder they should go to work much out of humour:
though it be in an affair which requires perfect tranquil
lity, and freedom from all perturbations. But his Lord-^
ship has the miserable advantage of being the first who
has written under one unintermitting fit of rage and resent
ment. In this state, like a man in a fever, whom no

posture

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 193

posture can ease, whom no situation can accommodate,
he is angry at PHILOSOPHERS for explaining what they
cannot comprehend ; he is angry at DIVINES for believing
without explaining : well then, they change hands ; the
philosopher believes, and the divine explains. No
matter. He is angry still. In this temper then we leave
him, and turn to the proper subject of my Letter.

You would know, you say, with what abilities he
supports his system.

The attacks upon religion have been always carried oil
like war, by stratagem and force. I shall therefore
first speak of his arts, and then of his pozvers of con
troversy.

It has been observed how closely, and how humbly too,
he copies the FREE-THINKERS who went before hiiiij
even to the stalest of their paltry stratagems.

When FREE-THINKING first went upon its mission,-
the PUBLIC were not disposed to understand raillery on
a subject of such importance : so that it is possible there
might be found, amongst the more early of these our anti-
apostles, a confessor or two to the glorious cause of infi
delity. This put their successors on their guard; or,
\vhat was better, gave them a pretence to affect it. From
henceforth you hardly saw an infidel-book, which was not
introduced with a mysterious reserve ; with the obligations
the reader had to these servants of truth, for venturing
so far in his service, while the secular arm hung so fear
fully over them ; with the disadvantages their cause now
lay under, while it could be but half explained and half
supported ; and with the wonders they would- do by pow
ers they had in reserve, when a little more Christian
liberty should suffer them to be drawn out. This mise
rable crambe made so constant a part of our diet, and had
been dished out from time to time with so little variety,
that it grew both offensive and ridiculous ; for what could
more provoke our spleen or our laughter, than to feign an
apprehension of the magistrate's resentment, after they
had written at their ease for almost a whole century
together, with the it:0st uncontrolled and unbridled
licence ?

In such a state of things, would you easily believe his
Lordship could pride himself in cooking up this cold

O -2 kitchen-

196 A VIEW OF LOUD [Lett. III.

kitchen-stuff, and serving it again and again, amidst so
elegant an entertainment. " GASSENDI (says he) ap-
" prehencled enemies much more formidable than mere
" philosophers, because armed with ecclesiastical and
" civil power. It is this fear which has hindered those
" who have combated ERROR in all ages, and who COM-
•" BAT IT STILL, from taking all the ADVANTAGES which
" a FULL EXPOSITION OF THE TRUTH would give them.
" Their adversaries triumph as if the goodness of their
" cause had given them the victory, when nothing has
" prevented their ENTIRE DEFEAT, or reduced their
" contest to a drawn battle, except this, that they have
" employed arms of every kind, fair and foul, without
" any reserve; while the others have employed their
" offensive weapons with MUCH RESERVE, and have
" even BLUNTED THEIR EDGE when they used them."

" The adversaries [of Religion] (says he again) seldom
" speak out, or push the instances and arguments they
" bring, so far as THEY MIGHT BE CARRIED. Instead
" of which, these ORTHODOX BULLIES affect to triumph
" over men who employ but part of their strength," &c.

What it is, which his Lordship, who affects to tread in
the steps of these cautious men, keeps thus hid and is so
shy of producing, is not easy to guess. But

" Sous cet air capable ou Ton ne comprend rien,

" S'il cache un honnete homme, il se cache tres-bien."

However, having (after his masters) thus feigned a
fear, he feigns all the obliquity and doubling, which fear
produces. He professes to believe the mission of Christ,
though founded on the dispensation of Moses, a dis
pensation he ridicules and execrates : he professes to be
lieve the doctrines of Christ, though he rejects his gift of
life and immortality : he professes to believe him the
Saviour of the world, though he laughs at the doctrine
of redemption, which constitutes the essence of that cha
racter.

Well fare the New Historian of Great Britain ;
who, having writ without control against miracles, and
even the very being of a God, gratefully acknowledges
the blessing; and owns that We now enjoy TO THE
FULL that liberty of the Press which is so NECESSARY
10 in-

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 197

in every monarchy confined by legal limitations*.
Nor is it, let me tell you, the worst part of the observa
tion, that though the Monarch should be confined by
legal limitations, yet the Writer for the Press should
not.

It would be endless to enter into his Lordship's small
arts of controversy ; yet it may not be amiss to touch
upon one or two of them, such I mean as are of more
general use and best disposed for service.

The first is, To honour the name, when you have
taken away the thing: As thus, To express the highest
devotion to GOD, when you have deprived him of his
moral attributes; — the greatest zeal for RELIGION, while
you are undermining a future state ; — and the utmost
reverence for REVELATION, when you have stript it of
miracles and prophecies.

2. A second is, To dishonour persons and opinions
the most respectable, by putting them into III com
pany, or by joining them with discredited follies.
Thus, Divines and Atheists; Clarkians and Male-
branchians, are well paired, and always shewn together :
In like manner, the propositions, that the world was made

for man, and that man was made for happiness, are
to be boldly represented as inseparable parts of the same
system. From whence, these advantages follow, that if
an Atheist be odious, a Malebranchian mad, and the
proposition of the world's being made for man, absurd ;
the odium, the madness, and the absurdity fall equally
on the Divines, on Dr. Clarke, and on the proposition,
that man was made for happiness.

3. A third is, To bring the abuse of a thing in dis
credit of the thing itself. Thus the visions of the
Rabbins are made to confute JUDAISM ; Popery and
school-learning, to decry the discipline and doctrine of J/
CHRISTIANITY : and the dreams of Malebranche, Leib
nitz, and Berkeley, to confute the waking thoughts of
CUDWORTH, CLARKE, WOLLASTON, and BAXTER: for
his Lordship is just such a confuter of metaphysics, as
that man would be of ethics or chemistry, who should
content himself with exposing the absurdities of the Stoics,
and the whimsies of the Alchemists, and yet fraudulently

* The History of Great Britain, Vol. I. p. 213.

O 3 forget

108 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett, IIL

forget that there are such authors as CICERO and BOER-
IIAAVE. — To overturn a FUTURE STATE, he employs all
the superstitious fables of the Poets and the people con
cerning it: to discredit REVELATION, he enumerates all
the impostors and pretenders to revelation in all ages :
and to dishonour DIVINE WORSHIP, he is very par
ticular in describing the rites and ceremonies of the
ancient Church of Kgypt, and the modern Church of
Koine. In a word, you are sure to find, on these occa
sions, every sort of topic, but what a sober and intelligent
reader would require ; Considerations drawn from the
'nature of the tiling itself.

You expect, however, that when the ABUSES of things
have done him this service, so as to stand, where he has
placed them, for the things themselves, He would for
once, at least, spare the AUTHORS of the abuse, if it were
only for the sake of carrying on the fraud. But you ex
pect more than you will find. His Lordship can, in the
same breath, call the abuses of Revelation and the Gospel,
by the names of Revelation and the Gospel, and rail at
that Divine, or a,t that Church, which has introduced
those abuses.

Thus far, for a specimen of his Lordship's arts of
controversy. But as a good mimic is commonly a bad
actor, and a good juggler a bad mechanic; fo an artful
caviller is as often a very poor reasoner.

You will not be surprised therefore, if, in examining
his Lordship's philosophic character, under the several
heads of his INGENUITY, his TRUTH, his CONSISTENCY,
his LEARNING, and his REASONING, you find him not
to niake so good a figure, as in the professed arts of
controversy.

I. Of his INGENUITY, which comes first, I shall be
very short: for his arts of controversy, of which you
have had a taste, are one continued example of it

1, Speaking of the Christians of the Apostolic age, he
thus represents their character and manners: — " Not-
u withstanding the sanctity of their profession, the
" GREATEST CRIMES, even that of INC EST, were prac-
" tised amongst them." Is it possible (you ask) that his
Lordship should give credit to, the exploded calumnies of
the Pagans and Apostates here alluded to ? Think better

of

Lett. III.] DOLING BROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 199

of his sense : he alludes to no such matter. St. PAUL
is his authority: and on the Apostle's accusation he
grounds his charge. This surprises you the more. It
may be so : for philosophers, as well as poets, of a cer
tain rank, aim at nothing but (as Bayes expresses it) to
elevate and surprise. Who would not conclude from
this account that the first Christians, notwithstanding
their sanctity, began their profession in a total corruption
of manners ; and, like the Magi of old, intermarried with
their mothers and daughters ? It would never be ima
gined, that the simple fact, as St. Paul states it, in his
first and second epistles to the Corinthians, was but barely
this, That a certain man (whether before or after his
conversion, we know not) had married his lather's wife ;
and, on the Apostle's reprehension, convinced and ashamed
of his folly, had repented and made satisfaction to the
Church for the scandal he had occasioned,

.2, Again, this first philosophy tells us, that when
JESUS speaks of legions of Angels, it is the language of
Paganism-, but when Lord Bo LING BROKE speaks of
numberless created intelligences superior to man, it is
the language of Nature: for, this doctrine of INTELLI
GENCES, his Lordship assures us, is founded on what
we know of actual existence. W-c are led to it by
plain, direct, unforced ANALOGY. But the doctrine
of ANGELIC LEGIONS, if you will believe him, stands on
no other foundation, philosophically speaking, than
of a MERE POSSIBLE existence of such spirits, as are
admitted for divers THEOLOGICAL USES. But why
this different measure for himself and his friends ? The
last words may let us into the secret. His philosophical
intelligences are a very harmless race ; but the Gospel
legions are much given to theological mischief. Mi*
mstring Angels bring in, what he can by no means away
with, a particular and moral providence. God's physical
providence, and the civil providence of the Magistrate,
make the only government he can relish. Now his in
telligences, like Epicurus's gods, are still, as they should
be, at an idle end:; but Angels are busy and -meddling';
indeed, too headstrong to be trusted uadex his Lordship s
f)hibsopliic administration.

O 4 You

200 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

You cannot, however, but be pleased to find, that the
method of reasoning by analogy, which you had cause
to believe his Lordship had totally discarded, from the
hard language he has so often bestowed upon it, is brought
again into favour, and now does wonders. For, it not
only opens the door to his Lordship's intelligences, by
a plain, direct, and unforced application, but, as you
will see under the next head, it shuts it against Jesus
Christ's.

3. "I only intend to shew (says his Lordship) that
" since men have not admitted, in favour of revelation,
" a system of PHYSICS that is inconsistent with philosophic
" truth, there is no reason for admitting, in favour of

the same revelation, a system of PNEUMATICS that is

" so too.

Now the friends of revelation say, this is a mere begging
the question. The reasoning, when fairly represented,
stands thus — <£ Divines reject the Scripture system of
PHYSICS, which THEY hold to be false ; therefore, they
should reject the Scripture system of PNEUMATICS, which
HIS LORDSHIP holds to be false." — Indeed, they con
ceive the argument to be no better than if one should say,
• — because politicians, in speaking of the first source of
civil regimen, have called it the primum mobile, alluding
to the old erroneous system of astronomy ; and because
they have talked too of a balance of power, alluding to
the true principles of mechanics; therefore, if we reject
their system of astronomy, we should reject their system
of mechanics likewise.

II. Thus much ior this noble philosopher's ingenuity.
Give me leave to lead you next and bring you to a place
where you mav have an advantageous view of his TRUTH,
the very soul of philosophy.

i. " The Christian theology (says he) has derived a
*' profane licence from the Jewish, which Divines have
"•rendered so familiar and so habitual, that men BLAS-
" piiEME without knowing they blaspheme, and that their
" very devotion is IMPIOUS. The licence I mean is
" that of reasoning and of speaking of the divine, as of
*' the human, nature, operations, and proceedings ; some-
" times with, and sometimes without the salvo of those

" distinguishing

Lett. TIL] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 201

" distinguishing epithets and forms of speech, which
" can, in very few instances, distinguish enough. The
" Jewish Scriptures ascribe to God, not only corporeal
" appearance, but corporeal action, and all the instru-
" ments of it; eyes to see, ears to hear, mouth and
" tongue to articulate, hands to handle, and feet to walk.
" DIVINES TELL us INDEED, that we are not to under-
" stand all this according to the LITERAL signification.
" The meaning is, they say, that God has a power to
" execute all those acts, to the effecting of which, these
" parts, in us, are instrumental. The literal signification
" is, indeed, abominable, and the FLIMSY ANALOGICAL
" VEIL, thrown over it, is stolen from the wardrobe of
" EPICURUS ; for he taught, that the Gods had not
" literally bodies, but something like to bodies, quasi
" corpus : not blood, but something like to blood, quasi
" sanguinem"

" DIVINES say, that God has no body nor any thing
like to body, but is IMMATERIAL. Epicurus said, that
his God had not a gross earthly body, but something like
to that body, and was MATERIAL." Yet " Divines have
stolen their flimsy analogical veil from the wardrobe of
Epicurus." Truly a very subtle theft; which extracts
MATTER from figurative expression I and well suited to
his Lordship's legerdemain, which draws an analogical
veil out of a metaphor. Indeed, to fit it the better to
Epicurus" s wardrobe, he makes it but ^flimsy one.

But let us now observe the various shifts he was re
duced to, in order to support his principal calumny, that
Divines stole from Epicurus the met hod of explaining
the nature of the Godhead. He says, when the Jewish
Scriptures had given GOD a body, the Divines found
out that it was not to be understood literally. They had
been strange Divines had they not found it out, when these
Scriptures declare that GOD is a SPIRIT, or immaterial',
jn contradistinction to body or MATTER. And the best of it
is, that in other places (as we have seen just before) his
Lordship quarrels with t lie Scriptures on this very account,
for their system of PNEUMATICS. Now what could these
Divines conclude, but that where the Scriptures describe
GOD'S actions, in accommodation to the ^ross concep
tions of men, they are to be understood" figuratively ?

But

A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

But this would not serve his Lordship's purpose ; which
was, to convict the Divines of nonsense and prevarication.
He, therefore, turns, what every body else calls META
PHOR, which is a figure of speech, into ANALOGY, which
b a mode of reasoning,— a flimsy analogical veil : and
Epicurus's ANALOGY (that the Gods had not earthly
bodies, but something like them, that is to say, material)
he turns into a METAPHOR, Epicurus (says he) taught
that the Gods had not LITERALLY bodies. Epicurus's
question was, not about literal or figurative expression;
but about similar and dissimilar things. — But you have
enough, you say, of this great restorer of TRUTH, and re
former of REASON. I will therefore be as short as possi
bly I can, on this head*

2. THE JEWS (his Lordship tells us) SUPPOSED

CRUELTY TO BE ONE OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE

DEITY. — These very JEWS themselves say, That the
Lord is gracious ami full of compassion ; slow to
tinker, and of great mercy : That he is good to all',
tind his tender mercies are over ALL HIS WORKS*:
That his mercy enduretli for EVER^: That the EARTH
is full of the goodness and mercy of the Lord'^:
That his mercy is from EVERLASTING TO EVERLAST
ING §. — Now, which of them will you believe?

3* " Superstition (says his Lordship) impersonated
" chance under the name of FORTUNE : and this chime-
*' rical Divinity was supposed to direct arbitrarily all the
" events^ whose causes were not apparent, or which ex-
" ceeded in good or ill the expectations of men. The
*' Heathens accounted by it for past events; consulted it
" about future ; and referred themselves to it in doubtful
" cases. It is strange that such SUPERSTITIONS, in-
" stead of being confined to the Heathen world, should
*" have been as "PREVALENT amongst Gods chosen peo-
*' pie, both Jews and Christians; and should be scarce
"exploded at this hour. It is stranger still, that a

•" RECOURSE TO T;IE DECISION OF CHANCE should be

" expressly commanded in the Old Testament, and
" occasionally countenanced in the New, even on so

* Ps. cxlv. B, *). t Chrcm. Jer. Esdra, Psalms, &c.

; i's. xxxiii. &— cxix. 6*. § Ps, c. S.-^ciii. I/.

" important

Lett, in.] BOLINGBROKF:S PHILOSOPHY, 203

" important an occasion, as the election of an apostle
" in the place of Judas Iscariot."

The assertion, you see, is, ist, that the Jetcs and
Christians, as well as the Heathens^ impersonated

chance under the name of fortune : and, 2dly, -hat
their having recourse to lots, was having; recourse to the

D

decision of fortune.

As to the first, it is so remote from all truth, That th&
custom of the Jewish people, in referring all event* to
God, and to him only and immediately, lias given a h mdl(i
to Spinoza, Toland, and others, to bring in question the.
very existence of an extraordinary providence in 'the
Mosaic dispensation; in which, to observe it by the way,
and with the abhorrence it ought to excite, they imve
had too many followers amongst the Divines who have
written against The Divhtc Legation.

As to the second, we must consider that LOTS arc of
three distinct kinds,

One sort is a civil ballotting : of general use in
to prevent intrigues and partialities. SOKTEM
says Tacitus, ne ambitiom ant Inlwlcitils locus J'orct,

Another, is a superstitious appeal to the imaginary
deity, chance or fortune*

And there is yet another, which is a reference of the
event to heaven; and this, by God's own direction and
appointment.

Of the second; and only reprehensible sort, Revelation,
as we have just now shewn, is entirely innocent.

Of the first, his Lordship, as a politician, v;ill not dig-
allow the use.

ilis quarrel, as a philosopher, is with the third. And
he has no way to support his charge, but by sophistically
reducing it into the second ; that is, representing it as
having all the superstition of the second. Now in this ho
begs the question. — Are the Jewish and Christian Revela
tions true or false ? False, says his Lordship, for several
reasons ; and, amongst the rest, for this, they authorize
the Pagan superstition of LOTS,— What" made the
Pagan superstition of lots ? Their being the inventions of
men, while they pretended to be of divine appointment. — *
Very well: but the Jewish and Christian lots were of
jliyine appointment Pretended to be so, if you please,

204 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

says his Lordship ; and this puts them into the condition
of Pagan lots. — Softly, my Lord; your argument must
not take that for granted, which your argument is em
ployed to prove.

But his Lordship had his head full of that master-
sophism of the FIRST PHILOSOPHY, which concludes
against the reason or justice of a DIVINE COMMISSION
from the abuse of it; and hecause subsequent impostors
pretended to the like authority. For, according to the
logic and theology of these Gentlemen, GOD must not
cast out DEVILS, because it afterwards gave a handle
for Popish Priests to juggle with their exorcisms. He
must not direct a thing to be decided by LOTS, because
a village-conjuror would afterwards employ the sieve and
shears. lie must not make use of HUMAN INSTRUMENTS
in punishing a people abandoned to unnatural crimes,
because an Arabian impostor would afterwards pretend
to the like commission. He must not institute a multi
farious RITUAL, though it was to keep a people separate,
and to secure them from the contagion of idolatry, be
cause wicked priests or politicians would establish super-
stitious ceremonies to keep communities enslaved to
civil or religious tyrants. These scrupulous Gentlemen,
when their hand was in, had done well to tell us, that
GOD should not have given men riches, knowledge, and
power, because there have been such as CHARTRES,
SPINOZA, and MULT MOLECH.

But to go on with his Lordship's veracity.

4. He asserts, that they [the Jews] made, beasts AC
COUNTABLE LJKE MORAL AGENTS. He is aware that
to mitigate this absurdity, as he expresses it, both the
Jewish and Christian commentators say, that the pain
inflicted on beasts was to shew the heinousness of human
crimes — to blot out the memory of a great scandal — to
punish the owner for his negligence. But he despises all
these solutions, as so many pitiful evasions. Would you
believe now that in the same breath, and merely to shew
his reading, he should confute his own false assertion ?
I know nothing more absurd (says he) than this, except
a custom or law at ATHENS. The WEAPONS by which
a murder had been committed were brought into
court j as if they, too, were liable to punishment ;

and

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE7S PHILOSOPHY. 205

and the STATUE that had killed a man by Its fall, was
by a solemn sentence of that wise people, the Thasii9
founded on a law oj DRACO, cast into the sea. Now
what was his Lordship to prove? That Moses was so
ignorant a lawgiver, and the Jews so stupid a people,
that they made beasts accountable like moral agents.
And he illustrates it by a law of the most celebrated
legislator and of the politest people upon earth, Draco
and the Athenians ; who, just in the same manner, made
even weapons and statues, moral agents. The Athe
nians and Draco perhaps would have said, that they
enacted these laws to shew their abhorrence of murder,
and to punish the careless erecter of a statue at a time, .
when in some of their cities there were more statues than
men. Mere SHIFTS AND EVASIONS, says his Lordship.

But what I chiefly wonder at is, that when his Lord
ship was in so good a train, he had not told us, that the
stupidity of these Jews went still further, even to imagine
walls and garments * subject to human diseases. Here
he would have had a little truth on his side, and a much
better subject for his contempt. This is only a word to
the wise, and for his followers to improve upon. Let
them try what they can make of it, and then they may
hear further of this matter.

5. Again, " God (says his Lordship) was FORCED to

* indulge the Jews in several SUPERSTITIOUS prejudices,

" as learned Divines scruple not to affirm." Had learned

Divines no more scruples m affirming, than his Lordship,

I should hardly have thought them worth my defending.

What they scruple not to say is this— -Thu IDOLA
TROUS WORSHIP was never so entirely corrupt, but that
some of its rites were still rational, or, at least, continued
innocent ; and might be used in the service of the true
God without superstition: that the Israelites being
fond of Egyptian ceremonies, God indulged them in the
use of such as were harmless ; and of no other. For
this, his Lordship calls them, boldjudges of the principles
and mews of God's proceedings. But in what does
their temerity consist? In teaching, that God always
chuses to take the ordinary means, before the extra
ordinary, when either may be made indifferently to s.rve

xiv.

his

A VIEW OP LORD [Lett, lit

his purpose. And that, therefore, he saw fit to indulge
the Jews in their fondness for old habits; and to turn
their propensities for the Egyptian rites, upon such only
as were innocent ; rather than to give them new habits,
and new propensities, by a miraculous impression on their
minds, which should overrule their wills and affections.

6. WE K:\O\V (says his Lordship) THAT ALL TUT:; ft
[the Jews] SACRED WHITINGS WERE COMPILED AFTER
THKtii CAPTIVITY. Balzac speaks of a certain Critic
who used to boast, that nobody, besides God and himself
knew the meaning of such or such a verse in Persius.
His Lordship's |VE KXOW] is just such another revela
tion. Only the Critic's meaning might be true; but the
Philosopher's knowledge is certainly false. A falsehood
So notorious, that I am in some doubt whether this stric
ture belong properly to his dogmatic or to his laconic
Style. For we knou\ may signify — ITe know that the •
SPURIOUS ESDKAS ,sY/j/«y «vo. And then lie gets the t\vo
things he most wanted ; a very useful fruth, and a very
lioble authority.

7. " The justice [of the great day] (says his Lordship)
" IF IT MAY BE CALLED JUSTICE, most certainly re-
" quires that rewards and punishments should be mea-
" sured out, in every particular case, in proportion to
*4 the merit and demerit of each individual. But instead
" of this, it is assumed, conformably to the doctrine of
" PLATO, that the righteous are set on the right hand
" of the Judge, and the wicked, en the left\ from
" whence, they are trans ported into Heaven, or plunged
<l into Hell. They are tried individually , they SEEM
" to be rewarded or punished collectively, without any
*' distinction of the particular cases, which have been so
u sokiiinlv determined, and without any proportion ob-
" F m cd 1 k-tween die various degrees of merit and demerit,
*• of innocence and guilt, in the application of these
" rewivrds and punishments.*'

//' it may be called justice — Marry, well put in.
Tor who know> but as this is the general day of reckon-
,vnd thiit men see, such a day will be \vanted, rather
\- . • be \\itlKHit any, they nright be foolish enough to take
lij) with tln^P- 77/V;/ .'-<r/?/ to he rewarded or punished
t>::'/A.v'A'/ /'/. SlKj^uld I seriously quote the words of

Jesus.

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY, 207

Jesus, — The servant, which knew his Lord's wili^
neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with
many stripes. But lie that knew not, and did com*
mlt things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few
stripes*; Should I seriously, I say, quote these words,
to confute the noble Writer's observation, that men at the
great tribunal seem to be rewarded or punished collcc^
tively, he would, I suppose, have been amongst the first
to laugh at my simplicity ; at least, the intelligent reader
would not thank me for my diligence.

III. I proceed now to his Lordship's CONSISTENCY ;
the next feature in his philosophic countenance. You
have seen with what bravery he contradicts all others ;
you shall now see with what greater bravery he contra
dicts himself.

There be two things which characterize the reasoning
part of his Lordship's writings (if any part of so declama-
tory a work can be called reasoning), and distinguish
them from all other men's; His incessant REPETITION'S,
and his incessant CONTRADICTIONS. Indeed, these
beauties beget one another. For when a writer can fur
nish out no better an entertainment than a parcel of
groundless flams, he will be much subject to repetition •
and every repetition as likely to be graced with a varia
tion ; for his tales having neither foundation in fact, nor
measure in truth, what is produced for admiration will bo
always new-modelling for convenience, as best suits his
present passions and purposes.

His REPETITIONS I leave for the refreshment of those
who are disposed to read him through: this short specimen
of his CONTRADICTIONS I propose for the amusement
of more cursory readers.

But as professed Answerers never abuse our patience
and understandings more than in this kind of discoveries ;
it may not be amiss, to say a word or two of a species of
confutation, which such men are always ready to urge,
on the very slightest grounds, for the convenience which
attends it; the convenience of making an Author confute
himself, when the Answerer is unable so to do,

Sometimes the imaginary inconsistency arises out of the
slow conception, or cloudy apprehension, of the
, * Luke xii. 47? 48,

.208 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett III.

when the Author is too brief or too refined : sometimes
from the less accurate expression of the Author, when
the Answerer is too subtile or too captious. It sometimes
arises from the Answerer's prejudices, and sometimes
again from the Author's prevarication.

Nay, which is stranger still, the very exactness of the
distinctions, and correctness of the terms (and the cor-
recter and exacter they will be in proportion to the
Author's knowledge of words and things), the more shall
the discourse abound with these fancied contradictions.
For a heavy or a precipitate Answerer will never be able
to distinguish things SIMILAR from things IDENTICAL.

Prejudice for a set of opinions may make an Answerer
mistake some things to be in nature, what they are only
in the combinations of the schools; and finding them
considered differently, that is, under other associations,
by his adversary, who may have no prejudices, or pre
judices of another kind, he \\ill be extreme ready to call
these differences, by the more commodious name of
contradiction*.

Lastly, the Author, if he be a FREE-THINKER, has
a right by ancient custom* to two or three, or indeed, to
two or three dozen of characters, as may best suit his
purpose, or errand : a practice, which, being begun
amongst us moderns, under a want of liberty, was con
tinued out of licentiousness, and is still kept up for the
sake of its conv< -iencies. Now if such a one be too
lazy to assume a personated character in form, then (as
Lord Shaftesbury observes; a dull kind o/1 IRONY, which
amuses all alike, becomes his favourite figure of speech.
But with such a Writer, an inattentive or plain-dealing
Answerer may give himself much trouble, to collect his
contradictions, and all, to be well laughed at for his pains.

I have honestly marked out these various delusions,
that you may have it in your power to detect me, should
I be tempted to impose upon you, myself. Not that
I claim much merit from this fair dealing ; for his Lord
ship's contradictions are so gross and substantial, so fre
quent and obvious, that I was under no temptation to
make out my specimen by any thing doubtful or am

biguous.

See CELSUS and PORPHYRY.

1. " I could

Lett. TIL] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 209

i. " I could not (says his Lordship) have discovered,
" as NEWTON did, that universal law of corporeal
" Nature, which he has demonstrated. But further than
" that, he could go no more than I; nor discover the

" ACTION OF THE FIRST CAUSE, BY WHICH THIS LAW
" WAS IMPOSED OX ALL BODIES, AND IS MAINTAINED

" IN THEM." Here he owns ATTRACTION not to be
a REAL, or essential PROPERTY OF MATTER, but the
action of the first cause upon it. Yet in another place
he observes, that u ATTRACTION MAY BE, notwithstand-
" ing all the SILLV abstract reasoning to the contrary,

" A REAL PROPERTY OF MATTER." The truth IS, that,

-for any thing his Lordship knew of this universal law,
attraction might be action, passion, magic, or the man in
the moon. lie only followed his leaders. Mr. COLLINS
displayed the same philosophic spirit in speaking of
gravity, the effect of attraction : and CLARKE'S animad
version on him will exactly suit his Lordship. — " Not
" content to have erred so very grossly in the first
" foundation of all natural philosophy ; you could not
" forbear professing further, that^ow have often admired
" that GRAVITATION should be esteemed a matter of
" such difficulty amongst philosophers ; and that you
" think it to be so evident and necessary an effect of
" matter in constant motion perpetually striking one
i part against another, that you wonder every body
" should not see it. I suppose the rest of the world will
' no less admire at you, for imagining that, by so slight
" an admiration you could at once set aside all the pro*
" positions in that most excellent book [the Principia of
" Newton] wherein it is made appear by strictly rnathe-
" matical demonstrations, drawn from the laws of motion,
' now agreed on by mathematicians, and established by
c experiments, and from the phenomena of the heavenly ,
6 bodies; that the present operations of nature, depend- ij
c ing upon gravitation, cannot possibly be mechanical \
" effects of matter in constant motion perpetually
" striking one part against another. — Upon the whole,
' all that you have advanced about gravitation is such
' marvellous reasoning, to be made use of in the present
age, -after so many great discoveries, founded upon ex-
perience, and even mathematical demonstration ; that
VOL. XII, P « though

«

210 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IIL

" though I have no cause at all to be displeased with you
" for arguing in such a manner ; yet, I believe, your
" readers cannot but think you might very well have Ibr-
" born going out of your way, to give so very disadvan-
" tageous a representation of your own philosophy*."

2. In one place, his Lordship tells us, that the right
of the Israelites to the land of Canaan was founded
on the PROPHECY of Noah : in another,, that it was

Joundedon the PROMISE to Abraham. Second thoughts
are best. He seems to come a little nearer the truth
here. For though a promise may iutitle to a possession,
I do not see how a prophecy can do more than foretell
one : Unless his Lordship has some ethical engine of a
new invention, to extend the grounds of obligation, un
known to GRGTIUS, SELDEN, and CUMBERLAND; yet
they travelled for it ;. and, if we may believe his Lord
ship's account of their famous journey to Paris, spared
for no room in laying foundations. But, in this affair of
the PROMISE, his Lordship insinuates an untruth; which
is a great deal meaner than to tell one : for he represents-
the favour as capricious, arbitrary, and without any rea
son assigned.

3. " The Jews (says his Lordship) as often as they
" made God descend from heaven, and as much as they
" made him reside on earth, were far from cloathing
" him with corporeity^ and imputing corporeal vices to
" him." Yet two or three pages forward, so prevalent
is his lust of abuse, that he expressly. says, they DID
clothe him with CORPOREITY. These are his words :
" The Jewish scriptures ascribe to God not only corpo-
" real appearance, but corporeal action, and all the in-
" struments of it; eyes to see, ears to hear, mouth and
" tongue to articulate,, hands to handle, and feet to
" walk." You will say, perhaps, that his Lordship
meant, the Scriptures indeed ascribed all this to God ;
but in a figurative, not in a literal, sense. I would have
said so too, but that his Lordship goes on rating the
Divines for understanding this Scripture-representation
in a figurative sense. Which, too, he shews does not
rnend the matter ', for this figurative sense, it seems, was

* Clarke's Third Defence of the Immateriality and Natural Im
mortality of the Soul, against Collins.

stolen

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 211

stolen from Epicurus. Now we know that Epicurus cer
tainly believed the Gods to be CORPOREAL, if he believed
any, though made of somewhat a finer stuff than mere
mortal bodies. " Divines" (says his Lordship) " tell us
" indeed, that we are not to understand all this according
" to the literal signification, &c. But this flimsy theolo-
" gical veil thrown over the literal signification, is stolen
"from the wardrobe of 'Epicurus." His Lordship's
wardrobe seems to be as rich as Epicurus's, in VEILS : a
little after, we have a very curious one, a thin and tritz
VEIL of analogy: and he is ready to lend them to
Divines, as Lucullus did his cloaks to the players, by the
dozen.

But whenever his Lordship speaks of CHRISTIANITY,
a kind of fatality attends him ; and then his contradictions
have neither stop nor measure.

4. Speaking of the last supper, he says, " The person
" by whom it was instituted is represented sometimes
" under images, that render it impossible to frame
" any, of the EFFICACY, or even of the INSTITUTION of
" this sacrament. Christ is a vine, he is a rock, nay he
" is a coat, according to St. Paul," &c. And yet no
further oft' than four pages, he says, " There is no one
" [figurative expression] perhaps in the whole Gospel,
" less liable to any equivocal sense, than that which
" Christ employed when he said, This is my body, and
" This is my blood, in the very act of giving bread and
" wine to his disciples, who were at supper with him, just
" before his death, for a remembrance of which, this
" ceremony of a supper was then instituted by him. The
£ figure was easy, the application natural, and they
" could not understand the expression literally."

His Lordship, as you may well think, has often different
purposes to serve by his contradictions. Here his pur
pose is one and the same ; to discredit a Gospel-institu
tion : which is equally done by shewing it to be mysterious,
obscure, and incomprehensible, where it pretends to
clearness and precision ; and low, trite, and mean, where
it pretends to something august, peculiar, and in the
highest degree efficacious. All the fault in this case, ex
cept his Lordship's most profound ignorance of the nature

P2 Of

212 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. II L

of the rite*, is his bringing these two curious observations
so near to one another.

^5. " Christianity [says his Lordship] as the Saviour
" published it, was full and sufficient to all the purposes
" of it. Its simplicity and plainness shewed (hut it was
" designed to be the religion of ..mankind* and manifested
" likewise the divinity of its original." This is very
gracious. Yet the scene changes with his ' Lordship's
humour : and the simplicity and plainness now become
dark, ambiguous, and incomprehensible. " That there

' are many ambiguous expressions, up any dark sayings,
" in the Gospel; MANY DOCTRINE*, which reason could

1 never have taught, nor is able to Comprehend, now
" they are taught, cannot be dqnied."

But let him recover his temper, and Christianity
brightens up with it. " The system of Religion (says
" he) which Christ published, and his Evangelists record -
" ed, is a complete systeln to all thS purposes of true
" Religion, natural and revealed. It contains all the
" duties of the former, it enforces them by asserting the
" divine mission of the Publisher, who, proved his asser-
" tion at the same time by his miracles^ But it is only
restored to be as suddenly deposed. Its birth is so far
from being divine, that he insinuates it to be spurious,
and neither better nor worse than a kind of bastard -
Platonism. " It is astonishing to observe the strange
" conformity between FLATON ISM and c KNU INE CHRIS-
" TIANJTY itself, such\as it is taught in the original Gospel.
" We need not stand to compare them here : particular
" instances of conformity will occur often enough. In
" general, the Platonic and GJiristian systems have a
" very near resemblance, QUALIS DECET ESSE SORORUM."
He then goes on to shew, that the common parent of
both was not REASON, but ENTHUSIASM.

Enthusiasm, you will say, is now fairly brought to bed
of twins, PLATONISM and CHRISTIANITY. No such
matter. Genuine Christianity was taught of God. — •
" As it stands in the Gospel, it contains a complete system

* See what is said of it, in " A rational Account of the Nature
and En U pf the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper," prefixed to the
Author's Sermons,

" Of

Lett HI.] BOLINGBROKFS PHILOSOPHY. 213

" of Religion : it is in truth the system of natural Reli
gion." Well then we shall hear no more of this sisterly
resemblance to Pl&tottism. Perhaps not But you
shall hear, and that soon too, of as good a thing. This
Christianity is at last found to be derived from JUDAISM,
that very JUDAISM, which he had told us, was itself
raised on THEFT and MURDER — " On the Religion of
" the Jews, and on the authority of their scriptures,
" Christianity was founded." Again, f{ They who pre-
" fer the example and doctrine of CHRIST to those of
" PAUL, will find reason to think that the Messiah in-
'" tended rather to reform and to graft upon Judaism,
" than to abolish it/' And again; He accuses PAUL
for preaching a new Gospel, called by the apostle, my
Gospel : and this new, or peculiar gospel, his Lordship
tells us, was the mystery of God's purpose to TAKE
IN THE GENTILES, so INCONSISTENT with the decla
rations and practice of JESUS. Yet for all this, had
Christ's Gospel Ci been propagated with the same simpli-
•" city with which it was originally taught by CHRIST, it
" would (he tells us) have been to the unspeakable bene-

" fit of MANKIND/'

Let us now sum up his Lordship's instructions to his
disciples, concerning the GOSPEL OF JESUS. " It is
" simple, clear, and of divine original:" but it is, at the
same time, " dark, ambiguous, incomprehensible; and
" like its sister ;Platonism, the issue of enthusiasm/' — •
As Jesus published it, the Gospel is a complete system
•of natural religion, and tends to the unspeakable
benefit of mankind: but as Jesus published it, the
Gospel was only a reform of that jinposture Judaism,
on which it wa&founded, and was intended by Jesus to
be confined to the Jewish 'people-, it being PAUL, who,
in direct contradiction to the declarations and the prac
tice of Jesus, turned it into a complete system of natural
religion, and made it tend to the unspeakable benefit of
mankind, by extending it to the Gentiles. And thus
he goes on contradicting his own assertions, as fast as he
advances them, from one end of his ESSAYS to the other.

The same self-contradictions, which confute his calum
nies against Christianity itself, still follow him when he
comes to speak of the PROPAGATORS of Christianity.

r 3 6, " He

214 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. Ill,

6. " He [says this noble Lord] who compares the
" Epistles- of JAMES, of PETER, and JOHN, such as we
"• have them, with those of PAUL, and all these with the
" doctrines of the GOSPEL, will be perhaps of my opi-
" nion ; at least he will have no ground to say of the
" THREE FIRST, that they were authors of NEW Gos-
" PELS, as he will have grounds to say of the last, and
" as the last does in effect say of himself." What was
this new Gospel? It was, as we have seen just before,
the mystery oj God's purpose to take in the Gentiles.
JAMES, PETER, and JOHN, therefore, according to his
Lordship, taught not this mystery ; so inconsistent, as he
says, with the declarations and practice of Jesus. Yet
soon after he confesses, that JAMES, PETER, and JOHN,
did teach this mystery, and forsook CHRIST'S for PAUL'S
NEW GOSPEL. For, speaking of the Council of Jerusa
lem, he says, The APOSTLES had given no directions to
insist that the GENTILES should or should not submit
to circumcision, and to the yokes of the Law: which
necessarily implies a concession, that THEY too were
authors of this new Gospel, the mystery of God's pur
pose to take in the Gentiles. The taking in the Gen
tiles, we see, he supposes a thing agreed on by all the
Apostles : and that, what was yet undone, was the settling
the precise terms of their admission.

Our unbelievers look so monstrously asquint upon re
ligion, that prejudice with opposite rays is always disturb
ing and confounding its own malignant aims. Yet, in
general, it requires pains to fix the contradictions which
spring out of these fugitive cross lights. Commend me
therefore to his Lordship, who brings his contradictions
to a point : and requires nothing of you but eyesight to
see them in their full glare.

His pro and con theji being so near neighbours, we
shall not be surprised to find them at last incorporated,
as it were, into one another ! as in the following in
stances :

7. " I much DOUBT [says his Lordship] whether the
" EVANGELISTS would understand the Epistles of St.

" PAUL, THOUGH ONE OF THEM WAS HIS SCRIBE."- — •

It was said of somebody, that he believed against hope:
a matter of much mirth to our jirst philosophy-men*

But

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 215

But what is that, to his Lordship's greater strength of
mind, who can doubt against certainty ! PAUL and
LUKE agreed to preach the Gospel together: and not
only so, but that LUKE'S pen should be employed to
convey their -coimnon sentiments and adventures to pos
terity. And yet he questions whether LUKE understood
PAUL'S EPPSTLES. Somebody, I suppose, when he had
penned this doubt, might tell him, that one of these
Evangelists was Paul's companion, his amanuensis and
historian. But the observation was too good to be thrown
away; he therefore 'adds, with infinite dexterity .and ad
dress — though one of them was Jus scribe.

8. Again, Speaking of the MORAL ATTRIBUTES, he
•observes, " We make God so much a copy of man, that
" w-e design the worst, as -well as the best of our own
•" features, if I may so say, in our representations of him :
'" and, as common as it is, no unprejudiced thinking man
'" can hear, without astonishment, our perfections and
"our imperfections imputed to the Divine Being in the
u same breath, and by the same men ; with this difference
" at most, that the former are imputed directly, and the
'" latter sometimes under the THIN AND TRITE VEIL OF
" ANALOGY. In a Being thus constituted, they may
••" well imagine that the moral virtues are the same as
•" they are in our ideas: and theology may easily deduce,
" " from his attributes, the characters theology has given
'" them."

W.e cannot, says his Lordship, without astonishment,
see our perfections and our imperfections imputed to
the Divine Being. His astonishment is all a flam.
His very words prove that he well knew imperfections
are not imputed. For when he thus boldly affirms,
they are, he was so twitched in -conscience, that he was
forced to add, under the thin and trite veil of analogy :
that is, not imputed. For when Scripture speaks of the
out-stretched arm of God, and his all-seeing eye., does
it impute arms and eyes to God, in the sense it imputes
justice and goodness to him ? Yes, says he — under the
thin and trite veil of analogy : i. e. Not in the same
sense. As if we should say, His Lordship AFFIRMS-
under the thin arid trite veil of a DENIAL,

P 4 Thi%

2i 6 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

This, Sir, is a very scanty specimen of his Lordship's
CONTRADICTIONS. Yet no man appears to be more
sensible of the disgrace which contradictions bring upon
a \\riter. For, speaking of the whole COLLEGE OF
APOSTLES, he says, These inconsistent writers' talk
often a different language on the same subject ; and
CONTRADICT in one place what they have said in
another.

IV. His Lordship's profound LEARNING comes next
to be considered.

1. The first i-nstance I shall give is fetched from the
very penetralia of the 'first philosophy. " HUMAN
" knowledge is so entirely and solely derived from actual
" being, that, without actual being, we should not have
" EVEN ONE of those simple ideas, whereof all the eom-
" plex and abstract notions that TURN OUR HEADS are
" composed."

Here, his Lordship cried eu^xa, and should have Sacri
ficed a bull for his discovery : which informs us ol" no less
a truth than this, that if men had had no being, they
would have had no sensation : in other words, that
qualities cannot exist without a substance: for if, by
actual being he did not take in the Thinker's own, the
observation is false : a rational being, though existing
singly, will have yet the idea of his own existence. But
the observation is every way extraordinary. He supposes
our simple ideas to be real ; he supposes our complex
and abstract notions to be compounded of the simple
ideas; and yet he supposes that the composition has
TURNED OUR HEADS. Till now, I understood it was
fantastic, and not real knowledge, which turned men's
heads. But I forget; His Lordship found the whole
•world in a frenzy ; and then indeed it is hardly worth
while to enquire what set them agoing.

2. " The PAGANS [says his Lordship] do not appear
" to have interpolated the ancient Doctors of Paganism ;
<; nor is there any pretence to say that THEY have im-
" posed any spurious books on the world, under the name
" of those Doctors:'

ORPHEUS and MERCURIUS TRTSMEGISTUS were cer^
Mainly Pagan Doctors, if ever there were any; and did

his

Lett TIL] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 217

his Lordship never hear, that the books, hymns, and
poems, under their names, which are come down to us
from times preceding Christianity, were Pagan forgeries?
I will not insist upon the SIBYLLINE ORACLES, which
CICERO assures us had been interpolated (for the Pagans
interpolated their very forgeries), because I do not know
to what conditions his Lordship confines the Doctorate
in the Pagan world, or whether he admits the fair sex to
the honour of the hood. However, let us not think him
so unlearned as not to have heard of these forgeries. He
had both heard of them, and considered them well : and
as he is always for putting the saddle on the right horse
(as where he loads Divines with Atheism) he charges all
these iniquities on the .CHRISTIANS. " It was, says he,
" to promote the opinion, that all the mysteries of their
" [tt.se Christians] religion, had been revealed by the
" writings of Pagan philosophers many centuries before
" Christ, that so many books were forged under the
" names of Mercurius Trismegistus, of Hystaspes,
" of the SIBYLS, and perhaps of others.5' We are got
a good way towards doctorating these old women : they
are become philosophers, we see. But whether the
Chris-dans were the only forgers of Sibylline oracles,
must be left to be decided between Tully and his Lord
ship. The truth is, and who, that understands antiquity,
ever doubted of it ! that some paganized Christians learnt
this trade oi forging books, under ancient names, from
those whose superstition they had left, but not that spirit
of imposture which supported it.

3. ' The [Greekj historians, says his Lordship, ob-
' serving how fond their countrymen were of those' who
c writ fables, turned history into romance; and studied
" to make their relations marvellous and agreeable, with
' little regard to truth, in which they were encouraged,
'AFTER ALEXANDER'S EXPEDITION INTO ASIA, by
1 the DIFFICULTY of disproving any thing they said of
' countries so remote/' A vulgar man, and one of those
his Lordship calls,' pedants, would have said — BEFORE
ALEXANDER'S EXPEDITION : because the difficulty in
a great measure ceased AFTER that conqueror had open
ed, and his successors had kept open, a communication
with those remote countries,

4. He

2-i 8 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

4. He calls Aristotle's logic, " the rules of a dialectic,
" that seemed to prove, and DID PROVE indifferently
" either in favour of truth or error." Exaggeration is
his Lordship's favourite figure of speech : but here it
seems carried a little too far; for, not content with say
ing that Aristotle's rules of syllogising (for that is what
he means by the rules of $, dialectic) seemed tv prove,
he will needs add, and DID PROVE. Which shews such
a knowledge of syllogism, as needed not the following
words to set it off : " It must not (says he) be imagined,
*' that he who reasons, or seems, rather, to reason closely
a and consequentially, has therefore truth always on his
" side." I desire to know who ever thought he had, who
did not mistake, as his Lordship here seems to do, the
art of ranging arguments, for the art of finding them?
" Nobody, his master Locke would tell him, can hinder,
" but that SYLLOGISM, which was intended for the ser-
<4 vice of truth, will sometimes be made use of against it.

" But it is NEVERTHELESS Oil TRUTH'S SIDE, AND
" ALWAYS TURNS UPOX THE ADVERSARIES OF IT*."

5. Speaking of Angels, his Lordship thinks fit to hazard
this observation : " There is another* cause of this PNEU-
41 MATICAL MADNESS [the belief of such beings] the

i fondness of making man pass for one of those beings
*' that participated of the Divine nature. This had
" long possessed the heathen Theists; and IT POSSESSED
" THE CHRISTIANS WITH MORE ADVANTAGE/'

This seems a demonstration that his Lordship either
never read, or at least never understood, an antient
Apologist The truth is, there was not one extravagance
in all Paganism, which afforded so much advantage to the
primitive Christians, as this fond opinion of the antient
philosophers, that the human soul was part or portion
of the Divine nature-, nor was there any, which they
were more solicitous, and for a very important reason f,
to expose : they laboured, indeed, with so much warmth,
and sometimes with so little discretion, that it hath given
a handle for some learned moderns to pretend, that all
the antient fathers believed the natural mortality of the

* Second Letter to the Bishop of Worcester, pp. 31, 32. Svo.
Edit. K><)7.
t See Div. Leg. Book III. § 4,

touh

Lett. III.] BOLINCBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 219

soul*. Well, but if the Christians were not possessed
with this fondness, his Lordship will shew you, at least,
they might have been possessed with it, and to more ad
vantage too. But this part of his Lordship's philosophic
character, his argumentation, I am not yet come to.
However, as we are now upon the borders of it, you
may not think it amiss to have it ushered in with this
curious reason, which is to shew, that the impious notion
of the human souYs participating of the Divine nature,
possessed, or at least might have possessed, the Chris
tians with more advantage, than it did the heathen
theists. Now, what do you think it is ? You will hardly
guess. It is, because Christians are wont to ASSUME
that man is compounded of body and SOUL.

Well, it must needs be allowed, that till we assume,
man has a soul, we can never be possessed with an
opinion that his soul participates of the Divine nature.
So much then is admitted, that since Christians hold,
man is composed of soul and body, they may be pos
sessed with advantage. But how it should be with more,
advantage, than the Heathens, I cannot comprehend.
Did not the Heathens as well as Christians hold that
man was composed of soul and body ? We need not, I
think, any other proof than this notion of participation,
imputed to them : for they could not, sure, be so absurd
to hold that nothing might participate of something.
However, of this I will not be over-positive, since his
Lordship tells us, they all laboured under an incurable

PNEUMATICAL MADNESS.

V. Such an escape of his Lordship's logic must needs
awaken us to expect great things from this last capital
accomplishment of the philosopher, his ART OF REASON
ING : to which we are now arrived.

i. He will prove against LOCKE, that the notion of
spirit involves more difficulty or obscurity in it than
the notion of body. Nay, he says he will MAKE LOCKE
PROVE THIS AGAINST HIMSELF, that we have iiiort and
clearer primary ideas belonging to body, than we have
of those belonging to immaterial spirit. And thus he
argues : " Primary ideas are the ideas of such qualities
" as exist always in the substance to which they belong,
* See Dodvvell on this subject.

" whether

220 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett, TIL

" whether they are perceived or no. They are therefore
" essential to it, and productive, by their operations, of
" those secondary qualities which may be said only to
" exist in our perceptions of them. Of the tirst sort are
" solidity and extension, to mention no others, the primary
" equalities, and in our ideas the essence of matter, of
" which we can frame.no conception exclusively of them.
" THESE NOTIONS I HAVE TAKEN FROM Mr. LOCKE,
" and they lead me to ask what the primary ideas are of
" spirit or immaterial substance ? The primary idea, or
" the essence of it, is THOUGHT; as body is the extend-
" ed, this is the thinking substance, SAYS DES CARTES.
" THOUGHT then, ACTUAL THOUGHT, is the essence of
" tfye soul or spirit, and, by consequence, so insepara-
<c ble from it, that we cannot conceive the soul or spirit
<; to exist separately from, or exslusivety of, thought
" But this I know to be untrue : and I may well own,
" since Locke has owned the same, that I have one of
" those dull souls that does not perceive itself always
'• to contemplate ideas"'

You will naturally suspect him of foul pla}r, when you
find him employing the language of one Philosopher, to
confute the sentiment of another. He is confuting
LOCKE'S assertion concerning the equal evidence of the
primary qualities of body and spirit ; and he takes DES
CARTES'S DEFINITION of the primary qualities of spirit,
to make good his point. In plain truth, he puts the
change upon us: he uses thought, or actual thinking,
for the faculty of thinking. It is this last, which is
essential to the soul, and inseparable from it : it is this
last, which being a power, is fitly predicated of an
agent-, as extension, which is a property, is fitly pre
dicated of a patient. It is this last, which Locke under
stood to be the primary idea of a spirit or immaterial
substance, when he said that the notion of spirit in
voices no mo re difficulty nor obscurity in it than that
of body : and it is this last, of which it ma^ be truly said,
that we cannot conceive the soul or spirit to exist
separately from, or exclusively of it.

2. His Lordship owns, that it is above humanity to

comprehend tnat virtue, whatever it be, whereby one

being acts upon another, -and becomes a cause.

3 " Whatever

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 221

I

" Whatever knowledge (says he) we acquire of apparent
" causes, we can acquire none of real casualty : by
" which, I mean, that force, that power, that virtue,
" whatever it be, by which one being ACTS on another,
" and becomes a cause. We may call tlm by different
" names, according to the different effects of it; but to
" know it in its first principles, to know the nature of it,
" would be to know as God himself knows, and there-
" fore this will be always unknown to us in causes that
" seem to be most under our inspection, as well as in
" those that are the most remote from it."

Would you believe, now, that it was but just before, in
this very Essay> that for want of this knowledge (which
yet to affect even in causes that seem to be most under
our inspection, would be to affect knowing as God him
self knows) he denies the SOUL to be a substance dis
tinct from body. " They (says he) who hold the hypo-
" thesis of two distinct substances, MUST EXPLAIN in
" some tolerable manner, which they have 'not yet done,
" the union and MUTUAL ACTION ON ONE ANOTHER,
" of unextended and extended beings, or else deny the
" absolute existence of any thing extrinsical to the mind."
That is, those who hold the hypothesis of two distinct
substances, must either do that which he holds no Being
but the Omniscient can do ; or they must run mad ; or
(which I think is something worse) they must give them
selves up to his Lordship's direction.

He employs the same arms to combat INSPIRATION;
and with the same advantage. The notion of inspiration
is idle and visionary, because " He has no more concep-
'( tion of this supposed ACTION of the divine, on the

i human mind, than he has of the inspiration by which
(t the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and Son,

1 according to the decision of the council of Florence."
That is, he rejects inspiration, because he does not com-
prehenA that virtue by which one being acts upon another,
and becomes a cause ; although he owns none but God
can comprehend it.

But his argument against the existence of the sour,

and the reality of INSPIRATION, is doubly faulty. For,

as it is the height of extravagance to reject a revealed

truth) because the proposition in which it is contained is

^ unaccompanied

222 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett lit,

unaccompanied with that explanation of the cause, of
which our faculties are INCAPABLE; so is it no small
degree of unreasonableness and folly to reject such truth,
because the proposition in which it is contained is unac
companied with that explanation of which our faculties
are CAPABLE.

3. His Lordship endeavours to shew, that a future
state was not the sanction of the law or religion of
Nature. And thus he sets about it. " Sanctions must

{ be contained in the law to which they belong; they
" must be a part of it. In their promulgation, they
" must precede, as the law does, necessarily, all acts of
" obedience, or disobedience to it — they must be as pub-

4 lie — These conditions are essential, there can be no
" sanction without them. And therefore the rewards of
" a future state, which have not these conditions, are no
" sanctions of the natural law. Reason and experience,
" that taught men this law^, shewed them the sanctions of
" it. But neither of them pointed out these. Have we

c any grounds to believe, that they were known to the
" antediluvian world? Do they stand at the head or
" tail of the SEVEN PRECEPTS GIVEN TO THE SONS OF
u NOAH? Were they so much as mentioned by
" MOSES?"

Canyon forbear laughing ? Had he found & future
state in the seven precepts of Noah, or in the books of
Moses, be assured he would have employed this lucky
circumstance to prove, that a future state was not the
sanction of the law. of nature, but of a positive law,
or of a pretended revelation, only. For in the be
ginning of this very section, he has attempted to prove it
was the sanction of positive law, from its being found in
the GOSPEL. " God (says he) has given a law, the law
" of nature and reason, to all his human creatures :
" the SANCTIONS of it are a NATURAL TENDENCY of

8 virtue to the happiness, and viee to the misery, of man-
" kind- — They are imperfect — To supply the imperfec-
" tion [revelation pretends that] there must be necessa-
" rily some FURTHER SANCTIONS of this law, and these
" are the rewardsnnd punishments reserved to a FUTURE
" STATE. Here is ample room for reflexions" In
truth there is : but as they would Biakeneo little for the

credit

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 223

credit of his Lordship's learning, his followers will not
be offended with me for not pursuing them.

4. He tells us, that the worship of the one trus
God was not the first religious worship. — The BIBLE
says it was. No matter for that. The BIBLE is a far
rago of inconsistencies. " Methusalem saw both Adam
u and Noah, to both of whom God revealed himself in
" his unity. Shem, the son of Noah, lived even to the
" days of Abraham. Need I stay to shew HOW IM-
" POSSIBLE it is for any man IN HIS SENSES to believe
" that a tradition derived from God himself, through so
" few generations, was lost amongst the greatest part
" of mankind; or that polytheism and idolatry were
" established on the ruins of it in the days of Sentg,
" before those of Abraham, and so soon after the De-
" luge ? I should think it IMPOSSIBLE even for the Jews
" themselves to swallow so many fables and so many
<£ anachronisms. Since the unity of God was not uni-
" versally taught in those early days, it was not so re-
" wealed, nor preserved in the manner assumed." This
account, therefore, he tells us, is INCONSISTENT with
itself. Now the utmost that prejudice in its senses can
make of it is an IMPROBABILITY: and this improbabi
lity, his Lordship himself, but two pages afterwards, is
so good to remove. He delivers it as a general truth,
that " the vulgar EASILY embrace polytheism and ido-
" latry, even AFTER the true doctrine of the divine unity
" has been taught and received ; as we may learn from
" the example of the Israelites : and superstitions GROW
" APACE, AND SPREAD WIDE, where Christianity 1ms
" been established and is DAILY TAUGHT, as we may
" learn from the example of the Roman churches."

Now, Sir, I argue thus, If amongst the Israelites,
idolatry and superstition so easily, so frequently, and so
instantaneously succeeded, to the worship of the true God,
and needed such severe punishments to bring men back
again to reason, in a place where many extraordinary
helps were provided to keep them in their duty ; and ifj
amongst Christians, idolatry and superstition grow apace
and spread wide where the true doctrine of the unity
is daily taught-, how can we wonder that, in i\\G few-
generations from Adam to Serug, polytheism and ido
latry

324 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

latry should establish themselves on the ruins of the
unity ; as this happened in an age, where we hear of no
other provision for the truth than the long Hoes of the
Patriarchs ; and Me tint salon's seeing both Adam and
Noah ? If you deny this to have been the case of Jews
and Christians, his Lordship tells you, you are out of
your senses : if you own this to have been the case of
the Antediluvians, you are out- of your senses still.
What is to be done? There is but one way; which is,
subscribing to his Lordship's unerring wisdom.

But I have something more to say of this pretended
INCONSISTENCY. — Can any man in his senses believe
that a tradition, derived from God himself, should
be lost in so few generations, and so soon after the
deluge ? — How few, and how soon, I beseech your
Lordship ? I am not captious : I have a special reason
for asking. The chronology of this period is not uniform
or constant; there is a wide difference in the several
Bible-accounts : so that I suspect foul play as well as
inaccuracy, in your thus putting us off with the vague
reckoning of, so few, and, so soon.

To be plain, though the HEBREW -copy make it no
more than three hundred years from the Deluge to
Abraham; yet the SEPTUACINT, and JOSEPHUS, reckon
about a thousand: time more than sufficient to sink the
greatest part of mankind into idolatry and poly
theism, so early as the days of Serug. And here lies
the difficulty : the best chronologers agree in preferring
the Septuagint and Josephus, to the Hebrew copy —
But I forget myself: his Lordship has " a thorough
" contempt for the whole business of the learned lives

" Of SCALIGER, BOCHART, PETAVTUS, UsHER, and

" MARSHAM :" to whom (he says) the whole tribe of
scholars bow with reverence, and consequently he must
have the same contempt for CHRONOLOGY; which, in
deed, he has shewn on more occasions than one; but
never to so much advantage, as where he seems to have
supposed that LTVY and TACITUS flourished before
VIRGIL*.

But this by the way only. My business with his Lord-

* See Dr. NEWTON'S learned and judicious Dissertations on the
Prophecies, p. 33.

ship.

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 225

ship at present lies in another quarter. For, having, in
his attempt to shew that the worship of the one true God
was not the first religious worship, thrown the BIBLE out
of the account, he goes on in this manner : " If the in-
" consistency of this account makes us reject it, we shall
" find less reason to believe, on the authority of 'profane
" traditions, that the I:.VITY OF GOD WAS THE PRIMI-
" TIVE FAITH of mankind. Revelations to the Father
" and to the Restorer of the whole human race might
" have established this faith universally : but without
" revelation it could not be that of any one people, till
" observation and meditation- — till a full and vigorous
" exercise of reason made it such." The reasoning is
truly admirable. The supposed fact, as we find it in
ANTIQUITY, stands thus. The BIBLE tells us, that the
worship of the true God was the first religious worship :
GENERAL TRADITION says the same. BetWeeri these
two testimonies there is a natural and strong connexion ;
the tradition appearing to rise out of the truth of the
written word', for, as his Lordship well observes, no
thing but a revelation could establish this faith uni
versally, not ei'en amongst one people, till observation
and meditation had made it familiar to them. Here
you have the fact proved in the strongest manner a tact
can be proved ; bv the concurrence of two witnesses,
coming from different quarters, and strangers to each
other's evidence ; which yet not only agree, but mutually
support one another. What would you more? — Hold
a little, says his Lord-hip. This boasted connexion is
not real, but imaginary : sacred history concerning a
revelation is not to be believed, because inconsistent :
profane, tradition is not to be believed, because without
revelation the unity of God could not be the first faith of
any one people. Thus stands his Lordship's reasoning,
or thus, at least, it would stand, had he un*ed it to the
best advantage. And to this, I reply, first, that his
Lordship, in calling the Bible account inconsistent, is
guilty of an abuse of words : that, all which his own
premisses infer is only an improbability ; and this im+
probability likewise, he himself fairly contradicts and
confutes. Secondly, He infers inconsequentially in sup
posing that from the inconsistency of a certain relation
VOL. XII. Q concerning

226 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

concerning revelation, there never was any revelation at
all. But though this be no proof that revelation WAS NOT,
yet an universal tradition that the primitive faith was
the doctrine of the unity (which doctrine, in his Lord
ship's reckoning, could come in no other way th.m by
revelation) may be a very good proof that IT WAS.
But I go farther, and, in defence of the Bible-account,
observe, That, if what he says be true, that observation
and meditation, and a full and vigorous evercise of
reason, are necessary for the gaining the knowledge of
the UNITY in a natural way, and that these qualities are
long a coming, then it is highly probable, that the want
of this observation and meditation, when the unity
was revealed to \hejirst man, might have been the occa
sion of the speedy loss of it. lie expressly tells us, that
this truth has been subject to as sudden revolutions, in
the times of Judaism and Popery , when men were in
full possession of it, with all their observation, medita
tion, and vigorous exercise oj' reason, at the height;
and twenty other advantages to boot.

But his Lordship's general management of this ques'-
tion, of the FIRST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, should not be
overlooked, though it belong .properly to another head.
He discusses the point at large, in two several disserta
tions: each of which is so well qualified, and so fitly
accommodated to the other, that the second is a complete
confutation of the first. How this came about, is not
unworthy the Reader's notice. His Lordship does things
in order. He had it first of all in his purpose to discre
dit the Mosaic account of the Creation : and MOSES
representing the worship of t lie true God as the origi
nal religion, he set himself to prove that Moses was
both a fool and a liar. Soon after, he had another
prophet to bring into contempt, the prophet ISAIAH, who
informs us, that the Jews were the only nation under ,
heaven which had the worship of the one God. A truth
which EUSEBIUS has taken upon his word*. His Lord
ship will shew that neither do they deserve any credit,
And then he ransacs all the dark corners, not of anti--
quity, but of those moderns who have rendered antiquity
still darker : in which he succeeds so well, as to persuade
* See Div, Leg. Book II. § 4.

himself

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 227

himself that the world, many a<res before the foundation
of the Jewish republic, had the knowledge of the one
God ; nay, that there was no time so early in which the
one God was unknown. Jn a word, he overturns, as
we said, and very completely too, every tiling he had
written on the same subject, in the other dissertation,
against MOSES. But as all this is directly levelled at the
Author, of The Divine Legation, I leave that writer to
do his own argument justice as he shall find himself
able.

5. In the mean time, I proceed to give you one of his
Lordship's palmary arguments against REVELATION.

" Can he be less than MAD, who boasts a REVELA-
" TION superadded to REASON, to supply the defects of
" it, and who superadds REASON TO REVELATION to
c' supply the defects of this too, at the same time?

" THIS IS MADNESS, OR THERE IS NO SUCH THING
" INCIDENT TO OUR NATURE."

Now as every man, who believes REVELATION, was in
these circumstances, his Lordship (and reason good) con
cluded the MADNESS to be universal ; and none but
himself in his senses : and standing thus alone he has
thought proper to give us frequent notice of this extra
ordinary case, Insanire me aiunt, ultra cum ipsi insa-
nlant. But if he will needs reduce us to this sad alterna
tive, I shall make no scruple to vindicate our common
nature, be it never so much at- his Lordship's expence.
For, as to the body of mankind, who <l hold that reve-
" lation was superadded to reason, to supply the defects
" of reason ; and that reason was at the same time
" superadded to revelation, to supply the defects of
•" revelation ;" I am so far from seeing in them any of
those unfavourable symptoms, his Lordship speaks of,
that I think, whoever had done otherwise, had deserved
(at least, on the principles of his Lordship's rigid justice)
to be sent to Bedlam. Indeed some, for so doing, have
been actually sent thither. For what, for the most part,
are the religious inhabitants of that place, but such, who,
having superadded revelation to supply the defects of
reason, WOULD NOT SUPEKADD REASON to supply the
defects of revelation ; but were for making the laws of
the Gospel the sole rule of alLcm/ as well as of all

Q 2 religious

228 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

religious measures : in other words, such as were grown
outrageously FA x A r r c A L.

Let us consider how the case truly stands. The reli
gionist, his Lordship says, boasts, that revelation was
supcracided to reason, to supply the defects of reason.
Very well. Reason then is the foundation, and revela-
ticta the superstructure. Revelation meddles not with
the work of reason, but supplies us 'with new truths,
where reason stops short. And why was this done ? —
For the sake of mi ADEQUATE RULE OF LIFE. Is rea
son alone this rule? — Then the superstructure of revela
tion was not wanted. Is revelation alone the ruler—
Then reason was built upon to no purpose. The ADE
QUATE RULE therefore is composed of BOTH. But if
so, When revelation has been added to reason to supply
the wants of reason, must not reason he added to revela
tion to supply the wants of revelation? Must not two
things, thus related, be mutually applied to tiie aid of one
another's insufficiencies? Reason is the base; revelution
is the upper-building. It is owned, the upper-building
is necessary to perfect the base : must it not be ownedr
that the base is as necessary to bear the upper-building?

But, (what is more) it is the GOSPEL itself, and not
artificial theology, as his Lordship pretends, which
gives us this direction. For the Gospel being to serve (as
is confessed) for a, superaddition to the first building of
natural religion, it delivers no complete system of moral
law (for which it is so often reproached by his Lordship )t
because the general parts of that system are to be found
iii natural religion. To supply this defect, if it be one,
St. Paul has pointed out an expedient — the study of
natural religion ; from whence, together with the Gospel,
£uch a complete system may be collected. " Finally,
^ Brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things.
" are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever
" things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, what-
" soever tilings are of good report; if there be any
" virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things*.'*
This then is the scheme of TRUE CHRISTIANITY. It
sniper adds revelation to reason, to supply the defects
&] it ; and superadds reason to revelation,, to supply
* Philipp. iv. 8*

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 229

the defects of this too at the same time. And can any
thing be more rational than such a scheme?

Indeed, was HE YE L ATI ox only a UEPUBLT CATION
OF THE RELIGION OF XATURE, his Lordship's charge,
though extravagantly urged, would appear to have some
foundation. For then revelation must be supposed to
be the religion of nature, restored and perfected : and
then to recur back to natural religion to rectify revela
tion, after revelation had been introduced to rectify natu
ral religion, would have, though none of the marks of
madness, which consists in arguing consequentially from
false principles, yet givat symptoms of /#//>/, which con
sists in arguing like his Lordship, from the true. But
he owns Christianity to be founded on the principle of
REDEMPTION. Indeed he is as variable in this, as in
most other points, and as often represents it to be a
republication of the religion of nature: when he
chuses to employ the gentler method of extirpation, the
explaining it away, it is then a republication : when, the
rougher and directer method of exposing it to contempt,
it is then founded in the doctrine of redemption.
Therefore, as we have all along made the best of his
contradictions, e'en let him do the same; for it seems
not fit, he should be deprived of any advantages of his
own procuring.

Let us set his Lordship's argument in another! light;
and turn from his philosophic to his legislative cha
racter; and suppose him to reason thus, (for change but
the terms, and the reasoning will hold just as well in
civil as in theologic matters). " Can he be less than
" mad, who boasts a system of civil I (tics superadded to
" the natural, to supply the defects of it; and who
" super-adds the natural to the civil, to supply the de-
u fects of this too, at the same time?" Now look, what
figure the Politician would make, who should thus instruct
liis pupils, even such does our noble Theologian make in
dictating to all mankind.

Amongst the numerous absurdities in this famous
argument, I don't know if it be worth while to take no
tice of one in the expression ; for as it seems not to be
committed with design, it hardly deserves the name of a
sophism; and that is, the repetition of the word SUPER-

33 ADDS;

230 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

ADDS; for though revelation may be saperadded to
reason, yet reason can never be said to be sitperadded
to revelation, how closely soever it may be joined with it ;
because the t'-vo systems can never become top and bot
tom in their turns, after it has been -owned that one is the
foundation, and the other the superstructure.

6. Another of his Lordship's general objections to
revelation, is as follows:

" It is not. in any degree, so agreeable to the notions
" of infinite wisdom, that God should deal out his revela-
" tions BY PARCELS, instead of making a system of
•*"* moral law, when lie created moral agents, that might
" answer his WHOLE purpose, in all circumstances of
" time, place, and persons ; JUST AS HE MADE a physical
c< system of laws for the other part, the inanimate part
" of his creation."

Now with his Lordship's good leave, I am bold to
think the contrary the more probable ; and that too, on
those very principles of analogy, which his Lordship
'employs, to prove it less so. He argues against the
likelihood of God's giving the moral laic IN PARCELS,
because the physical law was green AT ONCE. This
plainly proceeds on a supposition that the nature of the
two systems is the same; and that there is the like
constancy and regularity in the moral as in the physical ;
or the like irregularity in the physical as in the moral :
For unless there be the same tendency to order, or to
disorder, in two general systems, the means of governing
them can hardly be, the same. But in these two systems,
obedience to their respective laws is far unlike : passive
MATTER (the subject ofthephy$ica{} obeys, with small
irregularities, the laws impressed upon.it by its Creator;
but an active MIXD (the subject of the moral) is per
petually deviating from that rule of right which the Go
vernor of the World prescribed for its observance. The
method there/ore of governing in the two systems must
needs, according to all our ideas of wisdom, be very dif
ferent. And this difference, which our senses tell us has
been observed, is that which natural reason teaches us
to conclude, should be observed; namely, to a physical
system (uhose subject would constantly and invariably
obey) a law given AT ONCE : and to a moral system

(whose

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 231

(whose subject inclined it to frequent deviations) a law
given IN PARCELS; which might, from time to time,
reform the disorders as they arose.

But the folly, in thus embarrassing ourselves about the
fit ordinance of God's dispensations, has its source in a
MADNESS that his Lordship perhaps least suspected, and
which vet he was most concerned to guard against; the
madness of supposing that Eternal Wisdom needed the
aid of our contrivance to make things as they should be.

7. I shall conclude my specimen with some of his
Lordship's more particular objections to the BIBLE.

Speaking of the civil punishment of idolatry, under the
Jewish theocracy, he says, " God himself was the
" LEGISLATOR. The citizens, therefore, of that com-
" rnon wealth, who apostatized, were proceeded against
" as traitors and rebels, guilty of no less than high treason.
" Let it be so. The objections of injustice and cruelty
" to those laws icill remain in their full force, and
" be of more weight to prove them HUMAN, than all
" these hypotheses to prove them divine. God was
" KING, and idolatry was no less than high treason;
*' no objection therefore can lie against the punishment
" of it. None certainly ; but every objection to the
" MANNER and DEGREE in which this punishment was
" to be inflicted, stands good."

Here his Lordship, to make amends, as it were, for his
frequent denial of the truth, without understanding the
question, has for once ventured to agree to it, upon the
same terms. It had been said, " that as God was KING
" of the Jews, idolatry was high treason." To this, his
Lordship condescends. But to shew us how well he
understood the principle on which it stands, he affirms,
that God's being their LEGISLATOR, made idolatry high
treason. As if the barely giving laws to a people con
ferred the MAGISTRACY on the giver: or as if there
could be high treason against any but the MAGISTRATE.
But you shall see more of his talent for PHILOSOPHIC
POLITICS, if it fall in my way (as perhaps it will) to speak
of his abilities in his own trade. It is his reasoning on
the subject, not his general knowledge of the case (things
rarely to be found ^together in his Lordship's Essays)
that I now propose to examine.

Q 4 You

252 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

You observe then, he owns idolatry, in Juclca, to be
. high treason; and the punishment of it (which is every
where capital) to be just. But the manner and degree
of that punishment he pronounces, botli unjust and cruel.
Was this like a philosophic legislator ! — When the ques
tion is of the justice or injustice of a public law, every
man of common sense, and endowed with the instinctive
knowledge of right and wrong, may pass a true judg
ment on it ; because it stands on the unalterable nature
of things ; in human laws, on the relation between magi
strate and subject; in divine laws, on the relation between
God and man ; and in a system of laws, like the Mosaic,
both on one and the other, in conjunction. Now his
Lordship, in passing judgment on the case upon these
principles, pronounces the law against idolatry to be right
and equitable. What can be more honourable for this
part of the Jewish system ? It is Lord Bolingbroke who
decrees in favour of it; and is here aided, which he rarely
is, by the plainest and clearest principles of common
sense. Hold, says his Lordship; take this along with
you, Though no objection can lie against the PUNISH
MENT, yet every objection lies against the MANNER
and DEGREE of it.

Let us see, then, whether this stands upon the same
plain and clear principles with the other.

To judge truly of the manner and degree of a punish
ment, I apprehend, more is required than to judge of the
punishment itself. It requires an intimate acquaintance
with the people to whom this law against idolatry was
given ; a knowledge of their manners, tempers, disposi
tions, prejudices, and situation ; in a word, of a thousand
other circumstances, which none but the lawgiver himself
could perfectly understand; certainly, not this Politician
of yesterday. Sathat, it appears, the justice or injustice
of the manner and degree of a punishment is not deter-
minable on those simple and obvious principles which
shew the justice or injustice of the punishment itself,
but on other considerations which determine of right
and wrong from many shifting circumstances ; from the
degree of temptation in the object ; from the degree of
prejudice in the subject ; of propensity to the crime ;
of malignity to the system; and from other various

connexions^

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 233

connexions, of which only those who are perfect in the
knowledge of ancient manners in general, and of the
Jewish people's in particular, can form any reasonable
ideas.

This is enough to shew the folly of cavilling at the
manner and degree of the punishment of idolatry, after
the punishment itself is allowed to be just and right. But
this is not all ; the very allowance of the punishment
implies a presumption in favour of the manner and de
gree. The punishment of idolatry, a punishment which
could take place in no system of government but the
Mosaic, is, when examined on plain and clear principles,
found to be just : admit now, the manner and degree of
it to be doubtful for want of knowledge sufficient to shew
us the necessity i and consequently the justice of them.
Is it not fair to infer, that the lawgiver, who so wisely and
equitably observed the rule of justice in the punishment
itself, observed it likewise in the manner and degree of
the punishment ?

This, as to the general meaning, of the manner and
degree of a punishment. But, if I be not mistaken, this
manner and degree here insisted on have a peculiar re
ference to his Lordship's own system of divinity and
politics. I suppose, his principal objection to the
manner might arise from the punishment's being inflicted
by the civil justice of the state, and not by the immediate
hand of God. But he should have considered, that the
LAW all along distinguishes between the crimes capable
of legal conviction, and such as were inscrutable to all
but Omniscience. The latter, God reserves for his own
inquisition * ; but the crime in question was an overt-act
of idolatrous worship, and therefore came reasonably and
equitably before the civil tribunal. — His cavil at the de
gree comes next to be considered. Its being simply
CAPITAL was not, I believe, that for which his Lordship
imputed injustice and cruelty to it. The being attend
ed with CONFISCATION, as in the case of N a both, was
what seems principally to have incurred his displeasure.
But in a case, where his Lordship was personally pre
judiced, he should have mistrusted his own judgment; he
should have examined the force of those arguments, by
* See Div. Leg.

which

234 A VIEW 'OF LORD [Lett. III.

which a great lawyer had lately evinced, that forfeiture
for high treason is perfe&lyjtfst and equitable.

8. The no^le Lord, fearanfriiteg on the conditions of
historical authenticity, delivers this, for one of the
chief, " That th? facts, t!>e principal facts at least, be
" confirmed by COLLATERAL TESTIMONY. 1-y colla-
" teral testimony (says he) ! mean the testimony of those
" who had.no common interest of country, of religion, or
" of profession, to disguise or falsify the truth/'

This condition of historical authenticity will be easily
agreed to ; as well as his definition of collateral testi
mony : and the quotations of JOSI-PHUS ami EUSEBIUS,
from -Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and Greeks,
will without doubt be urged by the defenders of religion,
as sucn collateral testimony, where the witnesses had
no common interest oj country, of WKgioOi, or oj pro
fession, to disguise or Jalsijy tf<e truth. — Pardon me,
says his Lordship, u JOSEPH us indeed attempts to sup-
Ct port his history [the Bible] by collateral testimonies,
" those of Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chalaeans, and
" even- Greeks. But these testimonies, were they never
" so full to his purpose, would CEASE TO BE coi i A-
" TEPtAL testimonies, by COMING THROUGH HIM, who
" had a common interest of country and religion to dis-
" guise and to falsify the truth."

This seems a little hard, that, when our advantages of
defence are* in his Lordship's opinion, so rare, the few
we have should be lost the very moment they are gained.
JOSEPH us has no sooner seized this important mark of
historical authenticity, but it slips through his fingers
as he is urging it : and, what is still more extraordinary,
BECAUSE he urges it. The book of life and the seat
of life, it seems, have this property in common —

" Like following LIFE through creatures you dissect,
<c You lose it ia the moment you detect""

For,' as Tully well observes, all human things are given
to change.' " Corpora nostra non novimus. " Itaque
" mcdici ipsi3 quorum intererat ea nosse, aparuerunt ut
" viderentur: ncc eo tamen aiunt EMPIKICI notiora
" esse ilia, quia possit fieri ut patefacta et detecta,

*c 11 U TEN TUB.

But

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 235

Bat to canvass this wonderful reasoning a little closer;
let us make a &ppt»sitk>nl, or rather, let us lay down a
fact, that A pi ON, like his Lordship, had insisted on this •
very condition of historical authenticity ; and that
JOSEPH us, who defended the Bible against his cavils,
took him at his word, and agreed to put the issue of the
debate on that circumstance; and thereupon produced
the testimony of Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans,
and even Greeks, to support the sacred story. Thus
far, his Lordship will allow, matters went glibly on, and ,
the argument had its proper efficacy. JOSEPH us quoted
from the works of Pagan writers, transmitted to him
through the hands of Pagan readers ; and being engaged
with a clear-sighted adversary, without doubt, quoted
fairly. The historical authenticity of the BIBLE there
fore was established on the terms his adversary required.
How then comes it to pass, that an argument which was
once conclusive, has now lost its force? What was truth
in that age must be allowed to be truth in this ; or not
only the authenticity, but the very being of history will
become precarious. Do these Pagan testimonies, in
running through the channel of JOSEPHUS, become
polluted, as soon as the original books cease to exist?
No, says his Lordship ; but they may be suspected. On
what account, I pray? Could he prove that JOSEPHUS
burnt them ; or was aiding in their destruction ; or had
a fore-knowledge of their loss ; his Lordship might then
indeed have some reason to suspect. But to talk of
suspicion, merely because JOSEPHUS was interested that
the quotation should be to his purpose, is so vague a cavil,
as shews the objector will never be at a loss for an eva
sion. Were the originals still in being, he would then
suspect that these passages had been foisted in by some
Je-.vish or Christian impostor ; at least, by somebody or
other, who had a common interest of country, of reli
gion, or of profession, to disguise or falsify the
truth. In short, he would suspect all the world sooner
than his own power to impose upon us.

To shew you, this is said neither at random nor in
malice, consider his Lordship's conduct where this colla
teral testimony is circumstanced in the manner he him
self requires. The defenders of religion say that the

PENTATEUCH,

256 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

PENTATEUCH, which represents MOSES as the leader and
legislator of the Israelites, is supported by that evidence
which his Lordship calls collateral. What says his good
Lordship to this? " Be it so, that the Israelites had a
" leader and legislator called Moses is proved by the
ct consent of foreign, whom I call collateral evidences.
" But surely it will not follow, that this man CONVERSED
" WITH THE SUPREME BEING EJU:E rio FACE, which
" these collateral witness.es do not affirm/' Thus, you
see, these collateral evidences will always be rejected,
whether they tell their story viva voce, or whether their
depositions be taken clown by such who avail themselves
of their testimony. — But, they do not say that this man
conversed until the Supreme Being face ta face.
Would his Lordship have believed them, if they did?
Why, no, says he, my faith goes no further than to civil
facts ; and I must needs reckon such tales amongst the
miracles of the Greek and Roman historians. Very well,
my Lord. And does not this shew, that if the collateral
evidence speak but to Moses's legislation and civil rule,
they speak to every thing they are called for, in support
of Scripture against such writers as your Lordship. To
illustrate the case : It is doubted, for instance, whether
Uvy gives us a true account of such or such a campaign
between Hannibal and the Roman generals. Polybius,
Plutarch, and Appian, being Greeks, are produced as
collateral evidences ; but they speak not a word of those
prodigies which the Roman historian relates at large.

(}. BUT his hate to MOSES is immortal : notwithstand
ing all his Lordship's pretended contempt of him, as a
legislator, it looks as if, in his heart, he thought him a
very formidable rival. Archbishop TILLOTSON had at
tempted to defend the authenticity of his writings, on
this postulatum, that the unbeliever would only give
the, same credit to them, which he gives to every civil
history. His Lordship owns the demand to be reason
able ; and is willing to try his brother legislator, on these
terms. In order to this, he observes, " That one cow-
te dition of the authenticity of any human history, and
" such alone (says he) we are to consider in this place,
" is, that it contains nothing repugnant to the expe-
u rience oj' mankind. Things repugnant to this.expe-

" rienee

Lett. III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 237

*' rience are to be found in many that pass however for
" authentic; in that of LIVY, for instance: but then
" these incredible anecdotes stand bv themselves, as it
<f were, and the history may go on without them. But
" this is not the case of the Pentateuch, nor oj' the other
" books of the Old Testament. Incredible anecdotes
" are not mentioned seldom and occasionally in them :

u THE WHOLE HISTORY IS FOUNDED ON SHCH, it COI1-

" sists of little else; and IF IT WERE NOT A HISTORY

" OF THEM, IT WOULD BE A HISTORY OF NOTHING."

The unbeliever's objection to the authenticity of the
Bible as a civil history, is, that it is full of miracles :
and, supposing the defender of revelation ready to reply,
" So likewise is the history of Li-cy ; and yet that does
" not destroy iis credit;" his Lordship obviates the reply
extremely well : " There is an essential difference,"
(says he) " between the incredible anecdotes of MOSES
" and of LIVY. The Roman Historians miracles are
" detached pieces; they make no part of the subject, and
u are extraneous to it : but the miracles of the Jewish
4t Writer are intimately related to all the civil affairs, and
1 make a necessary and inseparable part; the whole
'" history is founded on them. Take away LIVY'S
' miracles, and the train of civil events goes on just as
" well without them : take away MOSES'S, and his
lf history becomes a heap of confusion, or, more properly,
" it is a history of nothing."

I am proud of any opportunity to acknowledge the
obligations which learning or religion have to his Lord
ship ; I only wish the occasions had been more frequent.

In a word, his Lordship's observation on the difference
between the MIRACLES in MOSF.S and in LIVY, is solid
and masterly. And this difference, let me observe, is
a certain mark, though not of that civil authenticity
which the good Archbishop's argument requires, yet of
that divine original which the SCRIPTURES arrogate to
themselves.

It is the specious, but trite, objection of infidelity
against the miracles recorded in the Bible, that those
remote ages were full of prodigies and portents. " Why,
" then, says the Freethinker, should we believe the in-
" credible anecdotes of MOSES, rather than those of

" LIVY?"

238 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

" LIVY?" For a very good' reason, replies his Lord
ship, we find them in a history essentially different from
that of L'rcy. Take away ///.$• miracles, together with
all those of the other Pagan historians, and the story
stands just as it did. But take away the ]HJ>LE MIRA
CLES, and you reduce the civil part of the relation to a
state of inexplicable confusion.

Again, one of the least hacknied, and indeed least
futile observations, I have ever hear;! urged against the
Bible (and it has been urged to me), is the WANT or A
NECESSARY CONNEXION between the civil and the
miraculous parts of that history. Here again his Lord
ship comes in, in support of revelation, and says, that
this necessary connexion is evident to all, for that nothing
can be made of the civil part if you take away the mira
culous. Which sure is a connexion of some strength.

Thus has his Lordship, before he was aware, in at
tempting to destroy the ci-cil authenticity of the Bible,
supported its divine original. And this good, though
undesigned, ought however to be acknowledged. But
you may think, perhaps, that a matter of this importance
is not here sufficiently developed. Without doubt, it is
not. This is a long story ; and as I pretend to have
supplied this DESIDERATUM, The uant of a connexion
between the miraculous and civil part of the sacred
history, I shall refer you to the proper place, where it is
to be found.

In the mean time, give me leave to go on with his
Lordship; and proceed to the proposition itself, That the
miracle* recorded in the BIBLE destroy its credit «,v a
civil history. Now this I apprehend to be a pure piece
of chicane. Let us see how the matter stands between
the Archbishop and his Lordship.

BELIEVERS say, the Bible-History is the history of a
dispensation really divine: UNBELIEVERS say, it is the
history of one only pretended ; and endeavour to support
their assertioti, by shewing it to have the civil marks of
falsehood and imposture. Here the Archbishop steps
forward, and offers to try the authenticity of the Bible on
the standard of a CIVIL HISTORY. Agreed, replies his
Lordship; And what say you to MIRACLES? Say?
Why, that miracles are out of the. question ;. and come not
5 into

Lett III.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 239

into consideration till the DIVIDE authority be contended
for. When we agreed to consider the Bible as a civil
history only, it was not for truth's, but for argument's
sake. If we held the. writers of it to be mere civil his
torians, the miracles, recorded in it, might be fairly urged
against us ; and urged with advantage, if indeed there be
that difference between them and Livy's, which is pre
tended. But we hold 'the writers were indeed inspired:
and you, my Lord, have shewn us, by that difference, to
justify the miraculous part, whenever their inspiration
becomes a question .between us. In the mean time,
stick to your point; and never fancy you can make our
Divines the dupes of so pitiful a sophism. You have
drawn us (while we debate a particular question with
you) to exclude for argument's sake one of our principles *;
and then urge against that question, a FACT f, which
stands, and is to be defended on the excluded principle;
and so cannot be maintained while the principle remains
excluded : .which is just as if, when you had persuaded
us to tie our hands, on promise that the question should
be only about the use of our feet, you should object to
US our inability of laying fast hold upon you. Your own
words, my Lord, where you push this imaginary advan
tage, best detect the fraud and imposture of your pro
ceeding. " The Old Testament (you say) is founded
" in incredibility. Almost every event contained in it
41 is incredible in its causes or consequences; and
" I must accept or reject the whole, as I said just now.
" No one, EXCEPT HERE AXD THERE A DIVINE, will
" presume to say, that the histories of the Old Testament
" are conformable to the, experience of mankind, and
" the natural course of things." — Except here and
there a Divine, do you say? Nor they neither, I assure
your Lordship. What they say is this, That every thing
of a mere civil nature in the Old Testament has all the
marks of civil authenticity. This is all they said, and all
they meant to say. And, on what good grounds they
said it, give me leave to shew your Lordship a little
more at large;

The Bible tells us, the world was created in time ; and
that time at no immense distance, as several fabulous
* T]be divine authority of the Bible. f Miracles.

relations-

240 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. III.

relations of Pagan antiquity had pretended. — And does
not the late invention of arts prove that the Bible says
nothing but what appears very probable?

It says, the earth was overflowed by a deluge of waters.
And do not the contents of its surface demonstrate
that it has suiiered this catastrophe?

The iiible says, again, that the founders of chics
were the initewtbrs of arts , and that the iirst civil go
vernments composed of small monarchies arose from the
domestic. And do not experience and the natural course
of things support so credible an anecdote?

The Pentateuch informs us, that the Israelites, after
a long abode in Egypt, went out as a great people, and
in a hostile manner, to seek new habitations. And of
this, have we not both external and internal evidence ?
The external in the Egyptian, Phoenician, Chaldee, and
Greek writers, quoted by Josephus and Eusebius: the
internal in the whole Jewish RITUAL.

Scripture relates the defection of the ten tribes to
idolatry ; their transportation to a foreign land ; and the
re-pcopiing that part of Judea with a new colony of
idolaters — And of the truth of all this, we say, the Sama
ritan Pentateuch, yet existing, is a strong and amazing
testimony.

These, my Lord, are a very few of the numerous in
stances which might be produced, to shew the civil
authenticity of the Bible. And on these and such as
these, the Clergy's challenge stood, when they undertook
to prove that authenticity, on the common principles of
historic credit. Further, or other than this, they neither
said nor meant to say. They understood, as well as your
Lordship, the difference between Moses's Incredible
anecdotes and those of Livy ; and that the Jewish his
tory, unlike to all other, is wholly founded on miracle*.
But they distinguished better than your Lordship, of
Moses's civil history : which consists of two parts; the
peculiar dispensation to that people ; and the occasional
story of the rest of mankind.

It is the peculiar dispensation only to which his
Lordship's observation can be applied, viz. that the civil
cannot be separated from the miraculous part : nor did
the Clergy attempt to do it. It was the occasional story

of

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 24!

of the human race, we must needs suppose, to which the
Archbishop's challenge referred : and I have shewn just
above, that we are able to make his challenge good.

Thus would I have reasoned with his Lordship; and
thus, in fact, was he reasoned with (as I may have occa
sion to tell you in my next Letter) : but he was deaf to
all advice, though it was given in private, and to save his
memory from the disgrace of these portentous ESSAYS.
What remained was to expose them, as they deserved, to
the laughter and contempt of mankind.

And now, Sir, I think I have pretty well discharged
my general promise to you. When one looks back upon
this poor collection of meagre, disjointed reasoning, tacked
together by his system, and swelled up to the semblance
of a body by the tumor of his rhetoric, one sees revived
in these Essays the old story of Prometheus ; his Lord
ship insulting the sanctity of the PUBLIC, just as that
most ancient of Freethinkers did the ALTAR OF JUPITKR;
on which, as the Poets tell us, he offered up to the King
of gods and men, A HEAP OF DRY BONES COVERED
WITH FAT. I am, $c.

LETTER IV.

YOU will wonder to hear again from me on so trifling
a subject as this FIRST PHILOSOPHY. And had not
Lord Bolingbroke reduced us to this alternative, either to

O ^

give up the BIBLE or his Lordship to contempt, I should
willingly have left him in possession of his admirers.

My last Letter examined his Lordship's value in every
point of view, in which a PHILOSOPHER would desire to
shine. I shall now push my inquiry a little further, and
venture into his own province. I shall crave your patience
while I try his talents in his POLITICAL capacity, as an
analyser of states, a balancer of power, and a distributer
of civil and religious sanctions.

But now we must recede a li*tl?. from the method
hitherto observed, which was to defend ag.-inst his Lord
ship's calumnies, not this or that body of Di ines, but the
general principles of natural and revealed religion Here
I shall iiave occasion to patronise a single clergyman ;

VOL. XII. R and

242 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett, T\\

and not sudi a one neither as I could have wished-;
a CuDwoimi, a CLARKE, a CUMBERLAND, or a TI-L-
LOTSON (established Barnes ! which the public are ready
to make their o\vn quarrel) ; but a writer of very am
biguous fame, the Author of The Divine Legation of
Moses, and, of The Alliance between Church and State :
of whom- I pretend to know little, but from the talk of
his adversaries ; his friends possessing him, as they do a
good conscience, in silence and complacency ; and from
his adversaries I learn—" But hold, you cry. let us drop
both his friends and his enemies, and hear what the learned
abroad say of him ; for his works are well known, and
have been frequently translated aad criticised both -in
Germany and i ranee; We may expect to hear truth
from strangers who are without selfish partialities or per
sonal prejudices."— Indeed, the Author would owe you
his thanks for referring him to that decision : foreign
critic ;i .of the greatest name have spoken so differently of
hi-m iVom the scribblers at home, that, was I to tell yota
v, -;:<it they have told the world, you would suspect their
encomiums. for the civilities, of his n^ost partial friends-.
So to his adversaries, I say again, I commit him : and,
from them I learn that he abounds in paradoxes, that he
delights in refinements, and woukl -fain pass upon the
world a heap of crude index-reading, for well-digested
learning : that, on his firsfc appearance, he was shrewdly
suspected of infidelity ; but that (nobody krkws how) he
has worked men into an opinion, of his being a sort of
friend to religion ; indeed, in his own way : I suppose
lie sees it for his interest to stick to the established
church; for I know no other reason why there should
have been different opinions concerning him. In a word',
as I judge of him from the representation of his enemies.,
I can allow him little other claim to literary merit, than
that very doubtful one, The dunces, of ail denomina
tions, being in confederacy against him. Indeed,
since his Lordship's discovery of a confederacy between
.Divines and Atheists, the word confederacy is likely
to become as ridiculous as the word ode, which, our
Laureate foretells, nobody for the future will hear spoken
of without laughing However, it shall pass ; for were
ihere no more ia this confederacy, than in his Lordship s,

and

tt IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 243.

and that every individual blockhead only followed the
bent of his own natural bias, it would but make the wonder
still more.

Such then is the Writer I am forced to take up with :
in truth, I could not find another, so proper for my pur
pose; which was, as I said, to display Lord Bplingbrqke's
political talents. For though his Lordship be very pro
fuse in his ill language to all \vho have undertaken the
defence of religion and church government-, yet the
Author of The Divine Legation of Moses is the only
one whom he does more than rail at and abuse on these
accounts. For while he keeps at a respectful distance
from the arguments or others, he comes, boldly, up to
this Writer's, and sits down before them in form. He
disputes with him, the knowledge of the Unity — the
sense and reason of a select people— oi a tutelary Deity
• — of compliance with human prejudices, and, in a word,
every leading principle of the Author's Book. I his
seems not greatly for iiis Lordship^ honour aitur 'he had
defied all the mighty chieftains of literature, to decline
the combat, and think himself quit by accepting the
gauntlet from this puny \V riter.

His Lordship begins his atiack on that capital circum
stance in the Jewish economy, THE OMISSION" OF A
FUTURE STATE: He pretends to account for it inde
pendently of the EXTRAORDINARY OR EQUAL PROVI
DENCE, which Moses assured his people was to be
administered under a theocracy ; and which the Author
of The Divine Legation attempts to prove, from this
very circumstance of the omission, was actually admi
nistered.

But to make this intelligible to the common reader, it
xvill be necessary to give a summary . view of that. famous
argument pursued at large through two volumes of Th e
Divine Legation, ai.d yet conceived by many of the
learned, to be left impertect; marry, by some, if you
were to judge from the knowledge they seem to have of
it, hardly to be begun. •

RELIGION has been always held necessary to the
support of CIVIL SOCIETY; and fun Jer the common dis
pensation of Providence) a FUTUR. STATE, as necessary
to RELIGION; because, nothing but zjuture state can

R 2 remove

244 A VIEW OF LORD' [Lett. TV.-

remove the objections to God's moral government, under
snch a Providence : whose phenomena are opt to disturb-
the serious professors of religion, as it is of the essence of
religious profession, to believe that God Is a rewarder
of those ic ho diligent I ij seek fuut.

MOSES, who instituted a religion and a republic, and
incorporated them together, stands single amongst ancient
and modern lawgivers, in teaching a religion* WITHOUT
the sanction, or even the mention, of a future state of
rewards and punishments. The same MOSES, by
uniting the religion and the republic of the Jews into one
system, made God by consequence their supreme civil
magistrate, whereby the form of Government became
truly and properly THEOCRATIC AT.

The natural consequence of a theocratic rule is an
extraordinary or EQUAL PROVIDENCE. And such,
indeed, the Jewish Lawgiver has every where represented
it to be. Now, the question between infidels and believers
rs, whether this extraordinary providence was REAL ov only

PRETENDED ?

Here the Author of The Divine Legation interposes ;
and undertakes to prove, from the circumstance of the
omission of a future state, that it was REAL. His
argument stands thu-s :

If religion be necessary to civil government, and if
religion cannot subsist, under the common dispensation
of Providence, without a future state of rewards and
punishments, so consummate a lawgiver would never
have omitted to inculcate the belief of such a state, un
less he had been well assured that an extraordinary
providence was indeed to be administered, over his- people :
'dr we're it possible he had been so infatuated, the impo-
tency of a religion wanting a future state, must very soon
have concluded in the destruction of his REPUBLIC ; but
his republic nevertheless continued flourishing and sove
reign, lor many ages.

This is the plain and simple ARGUMENT of The- Divine
Legation] which the first and the second volumes* of
that Work are employed to explain and illustrate. And
It must be owned, Lord Bolingbroke sawr it in its force, as
appears from his various contrivances to evade it. This

* Books L II. III. cS: IV. V. VI.

Braise

tett IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 245

praise it would be unjust to deny him, when others have
understood so little of the argument, as to imagine that
the two first volumes had left it unfinished ; and that the
third \vas to complete the syllogising though the author
had told us, more than once, that the purpose of the last
volume was -only to -ENFORCE the various parts of the
•fore^ojng ARGUMENT, by many new considerations.

To evade, as we say, this argument, his Lordship casts
•tfbirdt for a reason, independent of the -EXTRAORDINARY
PROVIDENCE, to account for Moses's OMISSION of a
future state. And his first solution is this, *'* MOSES DID

" NOT BELIEVE THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUT,, I1OF

"" the rewards and punishments of another life, though
" it is possible he might have learnt these doctrines iron*
" the Egyptians, wno TAUGHT THEM VERY EARLY,
" perhaps as they taught that of the unity of God.
'" When I say, that Mows -did not believe theimmor-
a tality -of Ike soul, nor future rewards and punisb-
'" merits, my reason is this, that he taught neither, when
" he had to -do icith a people ichom & theocracy could
" not restrain^ and on wlioin, therefore, terrors of
" punishment, future as well as present, eternal as well
<f us temporary, could never be too Hauch multiplied, or
46 too strongly inculcated."

This reasoning is altogether worthy of hi-s Lordship.
Here we have a doctrine, plausible in itself, and there
fore of easy admittance; most alluring to human nature,
and therefore embraced by all mankind.; of highest
account among the Egyptians, and therefore 'ready to
be embraced by the Israelites, who were fond of Egyp
tian manners; of strongest efficacy on the minds Q$ <*a
unruly people, and therefore of indispensable use^ yet,
•all this notwithstanding, Moses did not believe /V-, -and,
on that account, would not teach it. But then, had
MOSES'S integrity been so severe, how came he to write a
history winch, my Lord thinks, is, in part at least, a fic
tion of his own? Did he believe that? How came he
to leave the Israelites, as my Lord assures us he did, in
.possession of many of the superstitious opinions of Egypt ?
Did ke believe them toor No, but they served his
'purpose; which was, The 'better governing an unruly
$>eopLe. Wellj but his Lordship tells us? the doctrine of

K 3 a iijture

246 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

a future state served this purpose best of all ; for having
to do with a people whom a theocracy could not re
strain, terrors of punishment, FUTURE as well as
present, ETERNAL as well as temporary, could never
be too much multiplied, or too strongly inculcated.
No matter for that. MOSES, as other men may, on a
sudden grows scrupulous; and so, together with the
maxims of common politics, throws aside the principles
of common sense ; and when he had employed all the
other inventions of fraud, he boggles at this, which best
served his purpose ; was most innocent in itself; and was
most important in its general, as well as particular, use.

In his Lordship's next volume, this omission comes
'again upon the stage ; and then we have another reason
assigned for MOSES'S conduct in this matter. MOSES
•would not teach the doctrine of c; the immortality of the
M -soul, and of a future state, on account of the many
'" superstitions which this doctrine had begot in Egypt,
<c as we must believe, or believe that he knew nothing

" Of it, Or ASSIGN SOME WHIMSICAL REASON FOR

HIS OMISSION."

We have seen before, that MOSES omitted a future
state, because he did not believe it. This reason is now
out of date ; and one or other of the three following is to
be assigned ; either because it begot superstitions ; or
because he knew no thing of it ; or because HE COULD
DO WITHOUT IT, as the Jews were under an extraordi
nary providence ; that being what he means, by the
'whimsical reason assigned [by the author of The
Divine Legation] for its omission.

Let us take him then, at his word, without expecting
however that he will stand to it, and having shewn his two
first reasons not worth a rush, leave the last established
even on his own concessions.

i. M oses, says he, omitted a future state on account
of the many superstitions, which this doctrine had
begot in Egypt. But if the omission stands upon this
'principle, 'MosES must have omitted an infinite number
of rites and' doctrines, which, Lord Eolingbroke says, he
bcrrowed from the Egyptians ; part of which, in his
Lords1 ip's opinion, were those very superstitions, which
tiiis doctrine had begot ; such as the notion of tutelary

deities j

Lett IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 247

deities; and part, such as arose out of those; in which
number were distinction between things clean and un
clean; an hereditary priesthood, sacerdotal habits \
and rites of sacrifice.

.2. However, he has another reason for the omission :
MOSES might know nothing of it. To which if I only
opposed his Lordship's own words in another place (where,
giving us the reasons why MOSES did know something
of a future state, he. observes, there are certain -rites,
which seem to allude or have a remote relation to this
fcnj doctrine) it might be deemed sufficient. But I go
further, and observe, that, from the very LAWS of MOSES
themselves, we have an internal evidence of his knowledge
of this doctrine. Amongst the -laws against Gentile divi
nations, there is one concerning that species of them,
called by the Greeks NECROMANCY, or invocation of
the dead; which necessarily implies, in the lawgiver who
forbids it, as well as in the offender who uses it, the
knowledge of a jut u re state.

3. This being the late of his Lordship's two reasons,
we p.re now abandoned by him, and left to follow our
own inventions, and to take up \yitli SOME WHIMSICAL
TREASON FOR THE OMISSIONS' ; that is, to allow that, as
the Jews were under an extraordinary providence,
MOSES in quality of lawgiver had NO OCCASION for the
doctrine of n future state.

However, his Lordship dissatisfied, as well he might,
with the solutions hitherto proposed, returns again to the
charge; and in his Corona opens, the book of FRAG*
SIENTS, more openly opposes the doctrine of The Divine
Legation-, and enlarges and expatiates upon the reason,
before givea, for the omission ; painely, the many super
stitions this doc trim had begotten in Egypt.

" ONE CANNOT SEE WITHOUT SURPRIZE (says his

c Lordship) a doctrine so useful to ALL religion, and

' therefore incorporated into ALL the systems of Pagan-

" ism, left wholly out of that of the JEWS, Many pro-

' bable reasons uiight.be brought to shew, that it was ari

: Egyptian doctrine before the Exode, 'and this particu-

" larly, that it was propagated from Egypt, so soon, at

' least, afterwards, by all those who were -instructed like

' MOSES, in the wisdom of that people. He transported

R 4 " much

248 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

" much of his wisdom into the scheme of religion and
" government, which he gave the Israelites ; and, amongst
" other things, certain rites, which may seem to allude,

' or have a remote relation, to this very doctrine.
" Though this doctrine therefore had not been that of
" ABRAHAM, ISAAC, and JACOB, he might have adopt-
" ed it with as little scruple, as he did many customs and
" institutions merely Egyptian. He had to do with a
" rebellious, but a superstitious, people. In the first
*c character, they made it necessary that he should neg-
" lect nothing which might add weight to his ordinances,
" and contribute to keep them in awe. In the second,
" their disposition was extremely proper to receive such

i a doctrine, and to be influenced by it. Shall we vay
" that an hypothesis of future rewards and punish-
" ments was useless among a people who lived under a
" theocracy, and that the future Judge of other people
" was their immediate Judge and King, who resided in
" the midst of them, and who dealed out rewards and
" punishments on every occasion ? Why then were so
" many precautions taken? Why was a solemn covenant
<c made with God, as with a temporal prince? Why
" were so many promises and threateriings of rewards

1 and punishments, temporal indeed, but future and
" contingent, as we find in the book of Deuteronomy,
fi most pathetically held out by MOSES? Would there
" have been any more impropriety in holding out those
" of one kind than those of another, because the Supreme
" Being, who disposed and ordered both, w-as in a par-
" ticular manner present amongst them ? Would an
" addition to the catalogue of rewards and punishments
" more remote, but eternal, and in all respects far great^
" er, have had no effect? I think neither of these
" tilings can be said.

" VVhat shall we say then ? How came it to pass, this
" addition was not made? I will mention what occurs
" to me, and shall not be over solicitous about the
" weight that my reflexions may deserve. If the doc-
" trines of the immortality of the soul and of a future
" state had been revealed to MOSES, that he might
" teach them to the Israelites, he would have taught thorn
" most certainly. But he did not teach them. They

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 249

" were therefore not revealod to -him. Why they were
*' not so revealed, scrne PERT DIVINE or other will be
" ready to tell vou. For me. I dare not presume to
" guess. But this I may p"< uue to advance, that since
" these doctrines were not revealed by God to his ser-
" vant MOSES, it is highly probable that this legislator
" made a scruple of teaching them to the Israelites, how
" well soever instructed he might be in them himself,
" and howsoever useful to government he might think
" them. The superstitious and idolatrous rites of the
" Egyptians, like those of other nations, were founded on
" the polytheism and the mythology that prevailed, and
" were suffered to prevail, amongst the vulgar, and that
*' made the sum of their religion. It seemed to he; a
" point of policy to direct all these absurd opinions and
" practices to the service of government, instead of at-
" tempting to root them out. But then the great dif-
" ference between rude and ignorant nations and such as
" were civilized and learned, like the Egyptians, seems
" to have been this, that the former had no other system
" of religion than these absurd opinions and practices
" whereas the latter had an inward as well as an out-
" ward doctrine. There is reason to believe that natural
" theology and natural religion had been taught and
" practised in the ancient Theban dynasty ; and it fa
" probable that they continued to be an inicard doctrine
" in the rest of Egypt, while polytheism, idolatry, and all
" the MYSTERIES, all the impieties, and all the follies of
" magic, were the outward doctrine. MOSES might be
" let into a knowledge of both ; and under the patronage
" of the princess, whose foundling he was, he might he
" initiated into those mysteries* where the secret doc-
" trine alone was taught, and the outward exploded. But
" we cannot imagine that the children of Israel, in genc-
^ ral, enjoyed the same privilege, nor that the masters
" were so lavish, to their slaves, of a favour so distin-
" guished, and often so hard to obtain. No. The
" children of Israel knew nothing more than the outside
" of the religion of Egypt, and if the doctrine we speak
1 of was known to them, it was known only in the su-
f perstitious rites, and with all the fabulous circumstances
" in which it was dressed up and presented to vulgar

" belie£

g.$o A VIEW OP LORD [Left. IV,

" 'belief. It would have been hard therefore to teach,
" or to renew this doctrine in the minds of the Israel ites>
' without giving them an occasion the more, to recall the
" polytheistical fables, and practise the idolatrous rites,
<ei they had learnt during their captivity. Rites and
" ceremonies are often so equivocal, that they may be
*' applied to very different doctrines. But when they
V are so closely connected with one doctrine that they
" are hot applicable to another, to teach the doctrine is,
*' in some sort, to teach the rites and ceremonies, and
" to authorize the fables on which they are founded.
t£ MOSES therefore being at liberty to teach this doctrine
V of rewards and punishments in a future state> or not to
" teach it, Blight very well choose the latter, though he
*' indulged the Israelites, on account of the hardness of
" their hearts, and by the divine permission, as it is pre*
" sumcd, in several observances and customs which did
" not lead directly^ though even they did so perhaps in
"• consequence, to the polytheism and idolatry of Egypt/'

What a Babel of bad reasoning has his Lordship here
accumulated out of the rubbish of false and inconsistent
-principles! And all, to insult the temple -of God and
the fortress of Mount Sion ! Sometimes, he represents
MOSES as a divine messenger, and distinguishes between
what was revealed* and what was not revealed, unto him ;
and then, ct future state not being revealed to MOSES
teas the reason he did not teach it. Sometimes again,
he considers him as a mere human lawgiver, acquiring all
bis knowledge of religion and politics from the Egyptians,
4n whose secret learning he had been intimately instruct-
*ed ; and then, the reason of the omission is, lest the
doctrine of a future state should have drawn the
Israelites into those Egyptian superstitions, from
-which it. was MOSES'S purpose to estrange them. All
-these inconsistencies in j act and reasoning, his Lordship
tidivers in the same breath, and without the least intima-
lion of any change in. his principles or opinions.

But let us follow him step by step, without troubling
*3iir heads about his real sentiments; which this mew of
•his talents regards with indifference. It is enough .that
\ve confute all he says, whether under his own or aw

v *'•

•Assumed character, .

He

Lett. IV.]; BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 251

He begins 'with confessing, that ONE CANNOT SEE
WITHOUT SURPRIZE a doctrine so useful to ALL reli
gions, and therefore incorporated into ALL the systems
of Paganism, left wholly out of that of the Jews.

It seems then, this OMISSION is no light or trivial
matter, which may be accounted for by MOSES'S disbelief
of the doctrine; his ignorance of it; or the imaginary
mischiefs it might possibly produce. So that we may
be allowed to think it deserved all the pains, the Author
of The Divine Legation of Moses has bestowed upon,
it : whose whimsical reasoning, if it ended in a demon
stration of revealed religion, sufficiently atoned for its
going a little out of the way.

His Lordship proceeds to shew, in direct opposition to
what he said before, that MOSES could not be ignorant
of the doctrine of a future state, because the Egyptians
taught it: his knowledge of it (my Lord tells us) further
appears from an Internal circumstance, some of his
rites seeming to allude, or to have a remote relation,
to this very doctrine. This I observe, to his Lordship's
credit. The remark is just and accurate. But we are,
in no want of his remote relation ; I have shewn just
above, that the Jewish laws against necromancy neces
sarily imply Moses's knowledge of the doctrine.

He then goes on to explain the advantages which,
•humanly speaking, the Israelites must have received from
this doctrine, in the temper and circumstances with which
they left Egypt. MOSES, says he, had to do with a
rebellions and a superstitious people. This likewise
I observe to his credit : it has the same marks of sagacity
and truth; and brings us to the very ver^e of the sola-
'tion, proposed by the Author of The Divine Legation;
which is, that the Israelites were indeed under an extra
ordinary providence, which supplied all the disadvantages
of the omission. Under a common and unequal pro
vidence, RELIGION cannot subsist without the doctrine
of a future state: for religion implying a just retribution
of reward and punishment, which under such a providence
is not dispensed, a future state must needs subvene, to
prevent the whole edifice from falling into ruin. And
thus, we account for tiie fact, which his Lordship so
amply acknowledges, vis, that the doctrine of a future

state.

253 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

state Wets most useful to ALL religions, and therefore
incorporated into ALL the religions -of Paganism*
But wbjre an extraordinary providence is administered,
good and evil are exactly distributed; and therefore, in
this circumstance, a future state is not necessary for the
support of resiijion. It is not to be found in the Mosaic
'economy; yet this economy subsisted for many ages:
religion therefore did not need it ; or, in other words, it
\vas supported by an extraordinary providence.

This is the argument of The Divine Legation. Let
its now consider his Lordships present attempts to
evade it.

Shall we say, that &n hypothesis 'of future rewards
find punishments was useless amongst a people who
tived under a THEOCRACY, and that the future Judge
vf other people wcis their immediate Judge and King,
who resided in the midst of them, -and who dealt out
rewards and punishments on every occasion ? WHY
THEN WERE so MANY PRECAUTIONS taker,? £c.

First, let me observe, that the PRECAUTIONS here ob
jected to, are intended for an insinuation against the truth
of Moses's promise of an extraordinary providence. A
kind of SOPHISM which his Lordship advances and only
holds in common with the rest who have written against
*l'he Dic-inc Legation; and which I shall here, after
much forbearance on the Author's part, expose as it de
serves,

MOSES affirms again and again> that his people were
under an extraordinary providence. He affirms it indeed ;
but as it is not a self-evident truth, it needs to be proved.
Till then, the unbeliever is at liberty to urge any circum
stance in the Jewish law or history, which may seem to
bring the reality of that providence into question : the
same liberty too has the believer, if, at least, he can per
suade hhasclf to make use of it; as many, so professing
themselves, have done both in their writings and dis-
eoursings against The Divine Legation. Things were
in this train, when the Author of that book undertook
the defence of MOSES: and to obviate all objections to
the Legislator's credit^ arising from any doubtful or un
favourable circumstance in the law or history of the Jews
concerning this extraordinary providence, he advanced

the

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKETS PHILOSOPHY, 253

the INTERNAL ARGUMENT of the OMISSION ; an a <ru*
ment which necessarily interred that an extraordinary
providence was in fact administered in the Jewish republic.
What change did this make in the state of the case ?
A very great one. Unbelievers were now indeed at liberty,.
and believers too, if so perversely inclined, to oppose,
and, as they could, to confute the argument of The
Divine Legation : but by no rules of good logic could
they come over again with those Scripture difficulties to
Moses's credit, which the argument of The Divine Lega
tion had entirely obviated, and which it still continued
to exclude so long as it remained unanswered, For
while a demonstrated truth stands good, no difficulties
arising from it, however inexplicable, can have any weight
against that superior evidence. Not to admit this funda
mental maxim of common sense, would be to. unsettle
many a physical and mathematical demonstration, a:>
well as this moral one.

I say therefore, as things now stand, To oppose diffi*
culties against the administration of an extraordinary
providence, after that providence has been proved, and
before the prco/'has been confuted, is the most palpable
and barefaced imposition on our understanding, Iu
which, however, his Lordship is but one of a hundred :
and, indeed, the least indecent and inconsistent of tho
hundred ; as his declared purpose is to destroy the credit
and authority of the Jewish Lawgiver,

I shall not however decline to examine the weight of
these objections, though they be so foolishly and sophis-
tically obtruded.

If there was this EXTRAORDINARY providence ad
ministered, says his Lordship, IWiy so many precautions,
taken ? Why icas a solemn covenant made with God
as with a temporal prince 9 Why were so many
promises and threatenings of reicards and punish
ments, temporal indeed, but future, and contingent^
as we find, in the Book of Deuteronomy, most pathe
tically held out by Moses? This difficulty is not hard
to be resolved. We find throughout, what we believers
are wont to call the History oj Providence, but which
his Lordship is pleased to entitle, Tales more extrai'a*
gant than -those of Amadi* de Gaule^ that God, in his

moral

254 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

nnral government of the world, always makes use of
human means, as far as those means will go ; and never
interposes with his extraordinary providence, but when
they will go no further.- To do otherwise, would be to
make an unnecessary waste of miracles; better fitted to
confound our knowledge of NATURE, by obsc-jring the
harmony of order, than to manifest its Lord and Sovereign,
by controlling its delegated powers. This method in
God's moral government, all our ideas of wisdom seem
to support. Now when He, the great Master of the
Universe, had decreed to rule the Jewish people iia an
extraordinary way, he did not propose to supersede any
of the measures of civil regimen. And this, I hope, will
be esteemed a sufficient answer to — WHY so .MANY
PRECAUTIONS TAKEN, &c. But would you see it drawn
out more at large, you may consult the Author's Remarks
on the same kind of sophistry employed .by Dr. SYKES
against The Divine Legation.

But (says his Lordship) icon-Id the hypothesis of a
future state hare been useless ? §c. tfr'auld there.
(as his Lordship goes on) have bren any more impro
priety in holding out those [sanctions] of one kind than
those, of another, because the Supreme Being, irho
disposed and ordered both, was in a particular manner
present amongst them? Would an addition oj re
wards and punishments (more remote, but eternal,
and in all respects far greater) to the catalog ue,
have had no effect ? I think neither of these things
can be .said. His Lordship totally mistakes the drift of
the Author's argument. The Divine Legation infers no
more from the fact of the omission than this,; That the
Jewish economy, administered by an extraordinary pro
vidence, could do- without the service of the omitted
doctrine; not that that doctrine, even under t such a dis
pensation, was of no use, much less that it was IM
PROPER. But then one of his followers, or, what is as
good, one of the adversaries of The Divine Legation,
will be ready to say, " If a future state was not im
proper, much more if it was of use, under an extraordinary
dispensation, How came MOSES not to give it? For
great and wise ends of providence, vastly countervailing

use of that doctrine, if you will believe the Author of

The

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROJCE'S PHILOSOPHY, 253

The Divine Legation ; who, if he did not impose upon
us, when he promised a third volume (as his Lordship
constantly believed he did) will there explain those ends
at large.

Lord Bolinsbroke proceeds next to tell us, what occurs
to him, concerning the REASONS of the omission^ aii(J
previously assures us, he is not over solicitous abquj
their weight. This, I suppose, is to make his counters
pass current : for then, as Hobbes expresses it, they be*
come the money of fools, when we cease to be solicitous
about their worth; when we try them by their colour, no|
their weight; their rhetoric, and not their logic. But this
must be said with exception to the first, which is alto*
gether logical, and very entertaining

If (says his Lordship) the doctrine of the impiorta-.
llty of the soul and a future state had been revealed t$
Moses, that he might teach them to th$ Israelites, hv
would have taught them most certainly. But he dl»,i
not teach them. They were, therefore, not revealed
It is in mood and figure, you see ; and, I warrant you,,
designed to supply what was wanting in The Diving
Legation: though as the author of that book certainly
believed, the doctrines were not revealed, 'tis ten to onp
but he thought Moses was not at liberty tP teach them •;
unless you can suppose that his Lordship, whq believed
nothing of Revelation, might believe Mpses to be restrain*
ed from teaching what God had not revealed to him ;
and yet, that the Author of The Divine Legation, whu
held Moses's pretensions to be true, inight think him at
liberty to go beyond his commission. Thus far, then,
these two writers may be said to agree; but this good
understanding lasts not long. Mis Lordship's yioitesty.
and the other's pertne&s soon, make the breach as wjdp
as ever. — Why they were not so- revealed (says his Lord
ship) some PERT PIVJNE or other will be ready to tell
you, For me, I dare not pretend to guess. The for-*
wardness of the one, and the backwardness of the other,
are equally well siu'ted to their respective principles,
Should his Lordship have guessed, it might -have brought
him to what he most dreaded, the divine original of the
Jewish religion : had bis adversary for born to gaess, he
bad betrayed his cause, and l$ft UIQSQ 4ata iinernployei],

2;>6 ; A VIEW OF LORD [Lett.

which enabled him, I do not say to guess, but to discover,
and to demonstrate, the Divine Legation of Moses.

However, This his Lordship will presume to advaice,
that since these doctrines were not revealed by God
to his servant MOSES, it is highly probable, that the
legislator made a scruple of teaching them to the,
Israelites, howsoever well instructed he might be in
them himself] and hoicsoever useful to government he
might think them.

Here, you see, he personates a believer, who holds
MOSES to be an inspired lawgiver: but observe how
poorly he sustains his part ! Either MOSES did indeed
receive the LAW from God, or lie did not. If he did not,
why are we mocked with the distinction between what
was revealed, and what was not revealed, when nothing
was revealed? If MOSES did receive the law from God,
why are we still worse mocked with- the distinction be
tween what was revealed, and what was not revealed,
when every thing was revealed ; as well, the direction for
omitting a future state, as the direction to inculcate
the unity of the Godhead ? Why was all this mockery,
you say ? For a very good purpose : it was to draw us
from tiic TRUE object of our inquiry, which is, what GOD
intended by the omission, to that FANTASTIC object,
%vhich only respects what MOSES intended by it. For
the intention of GOD supposes the mission and inspira
tion of a prophet ; but the intention of MOSES, when con
sidered in contradistinction to God's, terminates in the
human views of an ordinary lawgiver; which leads us
back again to infidelity.

But he soon strip* Moses of his mission, and invests
him again with his civil character : and here he considers,
•what it was, which, under this character, might induce
Moses to omit a future state ; and he finds it to be, lest
this doctrine should have hurt the doctrine of the unity,
which it was his purpose to inculcate amongst his people,
in opposition to the Egyptian polytheism.

Moses (says his Lordship) it is highly probable,
made a scruple of teaching these doctrines to the
Israelites, hoicsoevtr well instructed he might be in
them himself, and hou soever useful to government
he might think' them* The people of Egypt j li'*e all

other

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 257

other nations, were polytheists, but different from all
others : there 'was in Egypt an inward as well as out
ward doctrine : natural theology and natural reli
gion were the inward doctrine ; while polytheism,
idolatry, and ALL THE MYSTERIES, all the impieties
and follies of magic, were the OUTWARD doctrine.
Moses was initiated into those mysteries where the
secret doctrine alone was taught, and the outward
exploded. — For an accurate divider, commend me to his
Lordship. In distinguishing between the inward arid
outward doctrines of the Egyptians, he puts all the
mysteries amongst the outward : though if they had an
inward, it must necessarily be part. of those mysteries.
But he makes amends presently (though his amends to
truth is as* it should be, always at the ex pence of a con
tradiction) and says, that Moses learnt the inward
doctrine in the mysteries. Let this pass. He proceeds — •
Moses had the knowledge of both outward and inward.
Not so the Israelites in general. They knew nothing
more than the outside of the religion of Egypt. And
if a future state was known to them, it was known
only in the superstitious rites, and with all the fabu
lous circumstances, in which it was dressed up and
presented to the vulgar belief. It would be hard
therefore to teach or to renew this doctrine in the
minds of the Israelites, without giving them an occa
sion the more to recal Ihe polytheistical fables, and
practise the idolatrous rites they had learnt during
their captivity.

The Children of Israel, it seems, knew no more of
a future state, than by the superstitious rites and
fabulous circumstances with which it was dressed
up and presented to the public belief. What then ?
MOSES, he owns, knew more. And what hindered
MOSES from communicating of his knowledge to the
people, when he took them under his protection, and
gave them a new law and a new religion ? His Lordship
lets us understand that this people knew as little of the
Unity ; for he tells us, it was amongst the inward doctrines
of the Egyptians : yet this did not hinder Moses from
instructing his people in the doctrine of the Unity. What
then should hinder his teaching them the inward doctrine

VOL. XII. S of

258 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett IV.

of a future state, divested of its fabulous circumstances ?
He had divested religious worship of the absurdities of
demi-gods and heroes; What should hinder him from
divesting a future state of Charon's boat and the Elysian
fields ? But the notion of a future state would have re
called those fabulous circumstances which had been long
connected with it. And was not religious worship, under
the idea of a tutelar deity, and a temporal king, much
more apt to recal the polytheism of Egypt? Yet Moses
ventured upon this inconvenience, for the sake of great
advantages; Why should he not venture on the other,
for the sake of greater ? for the doctrine of a future state
is, as his Lordship confesses, even necessary both to civil
and religious society. But what does lie talk of the dan
ger of giving entry to the fables and superstitions con
cerning the soul (superstitions, which, though learnt
indeed in the Captivity, were common to all the nations
of polytheism) when in other places he assures us, that
Moses indulged the Israelites in the most characteristic
superstitions of Egypt?

However, let us see how lie supports this wise obser
vation. Rites and ceremonies (says his Lordship) are
often so equivocal, that they may he applied to very
different doctrines. But ichen they are so closely
connected with a doctrine, that they are not applica
ble to another, to leach the doctrine is, IN SOME SORT,
to teach the rites and ceremonies. — In some sort, is
well put in, to soilen the deformity of this inverted
logic. His point is to shew that a superstitious rite, re*
lating to, and dependent on, a certain doctrine, will
obtrude itself whenever that doctrine is taught : and his
reasoning is only calculated to prove, that where the rile
is practised, the doctrine will soon follow. This may
indeed be true. But then it does not hold in the reverse,
that the rite follows the doctrine : because a principal may
stand without its dependent ; but a dependent can never
subsist without its principal.

Under cover of these grotesque shapes, into which his
Lordship has travestied the Jewish Lawgiver, he concludes,
that MOSES being AT LIBERTY to teach this doctrine
of rewards and punishments in a future state, or not
to teach it, he might very well, chuse the latter — Yet
2 it

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 259

it was but at the very beginning of this paragraph that he
tells us, Moses was NOT AT LIBERTY to teach or not
to teach. His words are these, Since this doctrine was
not revealed by God to his servant Moses, It is highly
probable that this legislator MADE A SCRUPLE of
teaching it. But his Lordship well knows that statesmen
soon get the better of their scruples; and then, by an
other fetch of political casuistry, find themselves more at
liberty than ever.

I had observed above, that our noble discourse!', who
makes MOSES so scrupulous that he would on no terms
afford a handle for one single superstition of Egypt to
get footing among his people, has, on other occasions,
charged him with introducing them by wholesale. He
was sensible his inconsistency was likely to be detected,
and therefore he now attempts to obviate it — Though he
[Moses] indulged the Israelites, on account of the.
hardness of their hearts, and by the Divine permission,
as it is presumed, in several observations and customs,
•which did not LEAD directly, though even they did so
perhaps IN CONSEQUENCE, to the polytheism and ido
latry of Egypt. And could the teaching the doctrine
of a future state possibly do more than LEAD IN cox-
SEQUENCE (as his Lordship elegantly expresses it) to the
polytheism and idolatry of Egypt, by drawing after it
those superstitious rites and fabulous circumstances
which, he tells us, then attended tiie popular notion of
such a state? If, for the hardness of their hearts, they
were indulged in several observances and customs, which
only led in consequence to polytheism and idolatry; why,
for the same hardness of heart, were they not indulged
with the doctrine of a future state, which did not lead,
but by a very remote consequence, to polytheism and
idolatry ? Especially since this hardness of heart would
less bear the denial of a DOCTRINE so alluring to the
human mind, than the denial of a RITE, to which hab.t
only and old custom had given an occasional propensity.
Again, those rites, indulged to the people, for the httra?
ness of their hearts, had, in themselves, little use or
tendency to advance the ends of the Jewish dispensation ';
Jbut rather retarded them: whereas a future state, by his
JLordship's pwa couxession, ' is mostwseful to all religrior#,

s 2

26o A VIEW OF LORD [Lett IV.

and therefore incorporated into all the systems of pagan
ism; and was particularly useful to the Israelites, who
were, he says, both a rebellious and a superstitious
people : dispositions, which not only made it necessary
to omit nothing that might inforce obedience, but likewise
facilitated the reception and supported the influence of
the doctrine in question.

You have here the whole of his Lordship's boasted
solution of this important circumstance of the OMISSION.
And you see how vainly he strives to elude its force.
Overwhelmed, as it were, with the weight of so irresisti
ble a power, after long wriggling to get free, he at length
crawls forth ; but so maimed and broken, so impotent and
fretful, that all his remaining strength is in his venom,
And this he now sheds in abundance over the whole
Mosaic Economy. It is pronounced to be a gross im
posture; and this very circumstance of the OMISSION
is given as an undoubted proof of the accusation.

— " Can we be surprised then" (says his Lordship)
" that the Jews ascribed to the all-perfect Iking, on
" various occasions, such a conduct and such laws as
" are inconsistent with his most obvious perfections?
" Can we believe such a conduct and such laws to have
" been his, on the word of the proudest and most lying
" nation in the world ? Many other considerations
" might have their place here. But I shall confine my-
" self to one; which I do not remember to have seen
" nor heard urged on one side, nor ANTICIPATED on
" the other. To shew, then, the more, evidently, how
" ABSURD, as well as IMPIOUS, it is to ascribe these
" Mosaical laws to God, let it be considered, that
"' NEITHER the people of Israel, nor their Legislator
" perhaps, KNEW ANY THING OF ANOTHER LIFE,
" wherein the crimes committed in tiiis life are to be
" punished. Although he might have learned this doc-
" trine, which was not so much a secret doctrine as it
" may be presumed that the Unity of the Supreme God
u wras, amongst the Egyptians. Whether he had learned
" both or either, or neither of them in those schools,
" cannot be determined : BUT THIS MAY BE ADVANCED
" WITH ASSURANCE; If Mos£s knew, that crimes, and
*' .therefore idolatry, one of the greatest, were to be

t " punished

•Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 261

" punished in another life, he deceived the people in the
" covenant they made, by his intervention, with God.
" If he did not know it, I say it with horror, the conse-
" quence, according to the hypothesis I oppose, must
" be, that God deceived both him and them. In either
" case, a covenant or bargain was made, wherein the
" conditions of obedience and disobedience were not
" fully, nor by consequence, fairly stated. The Israel-
" ites had better things to hope, and worse to fear, than
" those which were expressed in it : and their whole
" history seems to shew how much need they had of
" these additional motives to restrain them from poly-
" theism and idolatry, and to answer the assumed pur-
" poses of Divine Providence."

This argument, advanced with so much assurance,
his Lordship says, he does not remember to have seen,
or heard urged on one side, nor anticipated on the
other. A gentle reproof, as we are to understand it, of
the Author of The Divine Legation : for none but he, I
think, could anticipate an objection to an argument which
none but he had employed. Give me leave then to sup
ply his defects : I am the first good-natured animadverter
on him that has done so ; the rest have contented them
selves with their best endeavours to expose them. And
as his Lordship is so generous to invite an answer to it,
he shall not be disappointed.

Let it be considered (says his Lordship) that perhaps
Moses KNEW NOTHING of another life, wherein the
crimes committed in this life are to be punished. — -
Considered by whom ? Not by his Lordship, or his
kind readers : for his reasoning has brought them to con
sider the contrary. " Many probable reasons (says he)
" might be brought to shew, that this was an Egyptian
" doctrine before the exode ; and this particularly, that
" it was propagated from Egypt, so soon at least after-
" wards, by all those who were instructed LIKE MOSES
" in the wisdom of that people. He transported much
" of this wisdom into the scheme of religion and govern*
" ment which he gave the Israelites : and, among other
" things, certain rites, which SEEM TO ALLUDE, on

1 HAVE A REMOTE RELATION, TO THIS DOCTRINE."

This possibly might have recurred to his Lordship-, while

262 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

be was boasting of this new and unanticipated argument ;
and .therefore, in the tricking it up amongst his frag
ment., f > his perhaps, he adds, by a very happy correc
tive, although Moses might have learnt this doctrine,
which WAS NOT so MUCH A SECRET doctrine, as it may
be presumed that the Unity of the Supreme God was
Qhicn-gst the Egyptians. But he had done better to
have left his contradictions unconnected, and have trusted
to the rare sagacity of his readers to find them out. He
had ever an ill hand at reconciling matters ; so in the case
before us, in the very act of covering one contradiction,
he commits another. lie is here speaking of a futuri
st-ate, .divested of its fabulous circumstances; perhaps,
says he, MOSES KNEW NOTHING OF ANOTHER LIFE.
Which was, NOT so MUCH A SECRET doctrine as that
of the Unity. Now, Sir, turn back a moment to the
long quotation given in page 249, and there you ^vill
find, that a future state, divested, of its fabulous circum
stances, WAS AS MUCH A SECRET doctrine, as that of
the Unity : " There is reason to believe that natural
" theology and natural religion were INWARD doctrines
<c amongst the Egyptians. MOSES might be let into a
" knowledge of BOTH by being initiated into those
" mysteries where the secret doctrine alone was taught*
"But we cannot imagine, that the children of Israel in
" general enjoyed the same privilege. No, they knew
*' nothing more than the outside of the Egyptian reli-
" gion: and if the doctrine we speak of [A FUTURE
" STATE] was known to them, it was known only in the
" superstitious rites, and with all the fabulous circum-
" stances in which it was dressed up and presented to
" vulgar belief." — Is not this, now, a plain declaration^
that a future state, divested of its fabulous circum
stances, was as much a secret doctrine as the doctrine
of the Unity?

But his Lordship's contradictions are the least of my
concern. It is his argument I have now to do with.
And this, he says, he advances WITH ASSURANCE. It
is fit he should. Modesty would be very ill bestowed
on such opinions.

He thinks he can reduce those, who hold no future
state in the Jewish Economy, to the necessity of owning;

that

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 263

that MOSES, or that GOD himself, acted unfairly by
trie Israelites. How so, you ask? Because one or
other of them concealed that state. And what if they
did ? Why then they concealed one of the actual sanc
tions of moral conduct, future punishment. But who
told him, that this, which was no sanction of the Jewish
law, was a sanction to the moral conduct of the Jewish
people ? Who, unless the artificial t/ieologer ? the
man he most despises and decries.

And, even in artificial theology, there is nothing but
the CALVINISTICAL tenet of original sin, which gives
the least countenance to so monstrous an opinion ; every
thing in the GOSPKL, every thing in the NATURAL
THEOLOGY, exclaims against it.

JESUS, indeed, to prove that the departed Israelites
still existed, quotes the title God was pleased to give him
self, of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; and
this, together with their wcist&not, proves likewise the
happiness of their condition : for the relation they are said
to stand in with God, shews them to be of his kingdom.
But we must remember, that the question with his Lord
ship is, not of reward, but punishment. Again, JESUS
speaks (indeed in a parable; of the deceased rich man,
as in a place of torment. But we must remember that
the scene was laid at a time when the doctrine of a future
state was become national. To know his sentiments on
the question of subjection to an unknown sanction, we
should do Avell to consider the following words, " The
" servant which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not
" himself, neither did according to his will, shall be
" beaten with many stripes ; but he that knew not, and
" did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten
" with few stripes*/' Now the will of a master or sove
reign, declared in his laws, always includes in it the
sanctions of those laws. The author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews expressly distinguishes the sanction of the
Jewish Law from that of tlie Gospel ; and makes the dif
ference to consist in this, that the one was of temporal
punishments, and the other of future. He that de
spised Closes' law died without mercy, under two or
three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment,

* kuke xii. 47, 48.

s 4 suppose

264 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trod
den under foot the Son of God* ? Which appeal is
without common sense or honesty, on supposition that the
apostle held the Jews to be subject to future punish
ments, before that sanction was promul^ed unto them.
From the GOSPEL therefore it cannot be inferred, that
the Israelites, while only following the law of Moses in
which the sanction of a future state is not delivered,
were liable or subject to the punishments of that state.

Let us see next, Whether NATURAL THEOIOCY, or
natural religion (as his Lordship is pleased, for some
reason or other, to distinguish the terms) hath taught us,
that a people, living under an extraordinary providence
or the immediate government of God, to whom he had
given a law and revealed a religion, both supported by
temporal sanctions only, could be deemed subject to
those future punishments, unknown to them, which
natural religion before, and revealed religion since,
have discovered to be due to bad men living under a
common providence.

NATURAL RELIGION standeth (as has been already
shewn) on this principle, " that the Governor of the Uni-
" verse REWARDS and PUNISHES moral agents." The
length or shortness of human existence come not prima
rily into the idea of religion : not even into that com
plete idea of religion delivered by St. Paul, in his general
definition of it. The religionist, says he, must believe
that God is, and that he is A REWARDER of those who
seek him.

While God exactly distributed his rewards and punish
ments here, the light of nature directed men to look no
further for the sanctions of his laws. But when it came to
be seen, that he was not always a rewarder and a
punisher here, men necessarily concluded, from his moral
attributes, that he would be so, hereafter : and conse
quently, that this life was but a small portion of human
duration. They had not yet speculated on the permanent
nature of the soul ; and when they did so, that considera
tion, which under an ordinary providence came strongly
in aid of the moral argument for another life, had no
tendency under the extraordinary to open to them the
* Chap. x. ver. 28, 29.

prospects

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 265

prospects of futurity : because, though they saw the
soul unaffected by those causes which brought the body
to destruction, yet they held it to be equally dependent
on the Creator's will ; who, amongst the various means
of its dissolution, of which they had no idea, had, for
aught they knew, provided one or more than one for that
purpose.

In this manner was a FUTURE STATE brought, by
natural li^ht, into religion : and from thenceforth became
a necessary part or it. But, in the Jewish THEOCRACY",
God was an exact rewarder and punisher, here. Natural
light therefore shewed that under such an administration,
the subjects of it did not become liable to future punish
ments till that sanction was known amongst them.

Thus both natural and revealed religion shew, that his
Lordship calumniated them, when he affirmed, that,
according to the hypothesis he opposed, MOSES deceived
the people in the covenant they made, by his inter-
Vtnrion, with God : or that, if Moses did not know
the doctrine of a future state, then GOD deceived both
him ard then:.

Should it be asked, how God will deal with wicked
men thus dying under the Mosaic dispensation ? give me
leave to answer, in the words of Dr. CLARKE, on a like
occasion. He had demonstrated a self-moving substance
to be immaterial, and so, not perishable like bodies. But,
as this included the souls of irrational animals, it was
asked " How these were to be disposed of, when they
had left their respective habitations ? " To which he very
properly replies, ic Certainly, the omnipotent and infi-
1 nitely wise God may, without any great difficulty, be
" supposed to have more ways of disposing of his
" creatures" [I add, with perfect justice and equity, and
with equal measure to all] " than we are, at present, let
" into the secret of*." But if the Author of The Divine
Legation has not promised more than he can perform (as
his long delay gives us too much cause to suspect) this
matter will be explained at large, in his account of the
SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF THE REDEMPTION, which,
he has told us, is to have a place in his last volume.
* Octavo Tracts against Pod well and Collins, p. 103.

Nothing

266 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV,

Nothing new remains of this objection, but the sanction
of future rewards : and I would by no means deprive
the faithful Israelites of these. His Lordship therefore
has this to make his best of: and, in his opinion, even an
unclaimed reward is foul dealing ; for he joins it with
punishment, as if his consequence, against God's justice
and goodness, might be equally deduced from either of
them.- — A covenant •, says he, was made, wherein the
conditions of obedience and disobedience were not
FULLY, nor, by consequence, FAIRLY stated. The
Israelites had BETTER THINGS TO HOPE, and worse
to fear than those which were expressed in it. Though
It be hard on a generous benefactor to be denied the
right of giving more than he had promised ; it is still
harder on the poor debtor, that he is not at liberty to re
ceive more. True it is, that, in this case, the conditions
are not FULLY stated] and therefore, according to lib
Lordship's logic, BY CONSEQUENCE NOT FAIRLY. To
strengthen this consequence, his Lordship concludes in
these words — And their whole history seems to shew
how much need they had of these additional motives
[future rewards and punishments] to restrain them fronir
polytheism and idolatry, and to answer the ASSUMED
purposes of Divine Providence.

Whoever puts all these things together — " That Moses
was himself of the race of Israel — was learned in all the
wisdom of Egypt — and capable of freeing his people from
their yoke — that he brought them within sight of the
promised land ; a fertile country, which they were to coi>.
quer and inhabit — that he instituted a system of laws>
which has been the admiration of the w isest men of all
ages — that he understood the doctrine of a FUTURE STATE,
find, by his experience gained in Egypt, knew the efficacy
of it in general ; and, by his pertect knowledge of tlie
rebellious and superstitious temper of his own people,
could not but see how useful it was to them in particular"—
Whoever, I say, puts all these things together (and all
these things are amongst his Lordship's concessions.) and
£t the same time considers,' that MOSES, throughout his
whole system of law and religion, is entirely silent con
cerning a future state of rewards and punishments, will,

I believe^

tett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 267

I believe, conclude that there was something more in the
OMISSION than Lord HOLING BROKE could fathom, or,
at least, was willing to discover.

But let us turn from MOSES'S conduct (which will be
elsewhere considered at large) to his Lordship's, which i»
our present business.

1. First, he gives us his conjectures, to account forthd
omission, exclusive of MOSES'S Divine Legation : but,
as if dissatisfied with them himself (which he well might
be, for they destroy one another),

2. He next attempts, you see, to prove, that the Lega
tion could not be divine, from this very circumstance of
the omission.

3. But now he will go further, arid demonstrate that
an extraordinary providence in general, such a one as
is represented by Moses, and which the Author of The
Divine Legation has proved, from the circumstance of
the omission, was actually administered in the Jewish
republic, could not possibly be administered, without de
stroying free-will; without making virtue servile; and
without relaxing universal benevolence.

4. And lastly, to make all sure, he shuts up the ac
count by shewing, that an extraordinary providence
could answer no reasonable end or purpose.

In his first and last order of evasions, he seems to b£
alone ; but, in the second and third, he had the pleasure
of seeing many an orthodox writer against The Divine
Legation (to use his Lordship's language) in confede
racy with him.

I have examined his Lordship's first and second order;
The third and fourth remain to be considered ; it is the
last refuge of his infidelity; and then, I think, I may re
turn him back to the Author of The Divine Legation, to
give us a fresh VIEW of him; if so be he think it worth
his while to defend the other principles of his book
against him.

i . His first objection to the administration of an extraor*
dinary providence, such as MOSES promised to his people
on the part of GOD, is, that it would DESTROY FKEE-WILL-,
But here let me observe, that he affects to disguise the
Immediate object of his attack ; , and, in arguing against
an extraordinary providence; chuges to .consider it in the

general,

268 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV,

general; as the point arises out of an imaginary dispute
between him and the divines ; who, he pretends, are dis
satisfied with the present order of things, and require, as
the terms of their acquiescence in God's government, the
administration of an equal providence, here. But this
obliquity in disguising the true object of his"-attack not
being of itself sufficient to embarrass his adversaries, he
further supports it by a prevarication : for it is not true,
that divines are dissatisfied with the present order of things,
or that they require a better. All the ground they ever
gave his Lordship for imputing this scandal to them being
only this assertion, " That if the present state be the
whole of man's existence, then the justice of God would
have more exactly dispensed good and evil here : but,
as he has not done so, it follows, that there will be a state
of rewards and punishments hereafter."

This premised, I proceed to his first objection. — " In
" good earnest (says his Lordship) is a system of parti-
" cular providences, in which the Supreme Being, or his
" angels, like his ministers to reward, and his executioners
" to punish, are constantly employed in the affairs of
€t mankind, much more reasonable" [than the Gods of
EPICURUS or the morals of POLEMO] ? " Would the
" JUSTICE of God be more MANIFEST in such a state of
" things than in the present ? I see no room for MERIT
<£ on the part of man, nor for JUSTICE on the part of
" God, in such a state."

His Lordship asks, whether the justice of God would
be more manifest in such a state of things, where good
is constantly dispensed to the virtuous, and evil to the
wicked, than in the present, where good and evil happen
indifferently to all men ? If his Lordship, by the present
state of things, includes the rectification of them in a
future state, I answer, that the justice of God would not
be more manifest, but equally and fully manifest in
either case. If his Lordship does not include this recti~
fication in a future state, then I answer his question by
another; would the justice of the civil magistrate be
more manifest, where he exactly dispenses rewards to
good men, and punishment to evil, than where he suffers
the cunning and the powerful to carve for themselves?

But he. sees no room for merit on the part of man,

mr

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE?S PHILOSOPHY. 269

nor justice on the part of God. If he does not see, it
is his own fault. It is owing to his prevaricating both
with himself and his reader ; to the turning his view from
the Scripture-representation of an equal providence, to
the iniquity of Calvinistical election, and to the partialities
of fanatics concerning the favoured workings of the
Spirit ; and to his giving these to the reader, in its stead..
How dexterously does he slide enthusiasm and predes
tination into the Scripture-doctrine of an equal provi
dence! — If some men were DETERMINED TO GOODNESS
by the secret workings of the Spirit, &c. Yes, indeed,
if you will be so kind to allow him, that under an equal
providence the will is overruled, he will be able to shew
you, there is an end of all merit and demerit. But this
substituting artificial theology (as he calls it) in the place
of Bible- theology, is his usual legerdemain. So again—
I can conceive still less, that individual creatures be
fore they have done either good or evil, nay, before
their actual existence, can be the objects of predilec
tion or aversion, of love or hatred, to God, Who, of
the Gospel- divines, against whom he is here writing, would
have him conceive any thing of this at all? It is the
artificial theologer, the depraver, as he says, of the
Gospel, who would draw him into so absurd a system.
But what has this exploded theology, that abounds only
in human inventions, to do with the extraordinary provi
dence, represented in Holy Writ ! To say, that this pro
vidence takes away man's merit and God's justice, is
confounding all our ideas of right and wrong. Is it not
the highest merit of a rational creature, to comply with
that motive which has most real weight? And "is not
God's justice then most manifest, when the order of things
present fewest difficulties and obscurities in our contem
plation of it? His Lordship was plainly of these senti
ments, when, arguing against God's compliance with the
Jewish hardness of heart, he thought it more becoming
the Master of the Universe, to bend the perverse stiffness*
of their wills : and, when arguing against a future state
from the present good order of things, he pretends to
shew, against divines and atheists in conjunction, that
there is little or no irregularity in the present dispensa
tions of Providence ; at least, not so much as the world

commonly

270 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett.

commonly imagine. And why was this paradox advanced,
but from a consciousness that the more exact the present
administration of God's providence appeared, the more
manifest it made his justice? But now his Lordship's
followers may be apt to pretend, that their master has
here done no more, indeed scarce so much, at least not
5n so express terms, as a celebrated Prelate, in one of his
discourses at the Temple ; who tells us, " That an imme-
" diate and visible interposition of Providence in behalf
" of the righteous, and for the punishment of the wicked,

" WOuld INTERFERE WITH THE FREEDOM OF MORAL
" AGENTS, AND NOT LEAVE ROOM FOR THEIR TRIAL*.""

But they who object this to us, have not considered the
nature of moral differences. For, as another learned
Prelate well observes, A little experience may convince
us, that the same thing, at different times, is not the
same^. Now if different times may make such altera
tions in identity, what must different men do ? The
thing said being by all candid interpretation to be regu
lated on the purpose of saying.

2. Lord Bolingbroke's second objection against an
equal providence is, that it would MAKE VIRTUE SER
VILE.- — " If the good, besides the enjoyment of all that
" happiness which is inseparable from virtue, were ex-
" empted from all kinds of evil, and if the wicked, be-
" sides all those evils which are inseparable from vice,
t( and those which happen to all men in the ordinary
" course of events, were exposed to others that the hand
" of God inflicted on them in an extraordinary manner,
" such good men would have VERY LITTLE MERIT;
" they would have, while they continued to be good, no
" other merit than that of children who are cajoled into
" their duty ; or than that of galley-slaves who ply at the
" oar, because they hear and see and fear tiie lasii of the
" boatswain."

If the perfection of a rational creature consists in act
ing according to reason; and if his merit rises in propor
tion as he advances in perfection ; how can that state,
which best secures him from acting irrationally, lessen or

* Vol. ii. pp. 258, 25.9.

. f Scripture vindicated from the Misrepresentations of the Bishop of
Bangor, p. 1 65.

take

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 271

take away his merit ? Are the actions of the Deity of les«
worth, for his moral incapacity of being unjust or malign
nant ? The motive which induces to right action is indeed
more or less excellent, according to the dignity or nature
of the agent : but the question here is not concerning the
excellence, but the power of the motive to turn action
into passion ; which is the only way I can conceive of
destroying merit in the subject. Now I hold, that this
fancy, That motives exterior to the being on which they
work, may be able to turn an agent to a patient, is one of
the greatest of physical absurdities ; and therefore com
monly goes about disguised, in the garb of metaphysics*
For while agency remains, merit subsists : the degrees of
which do not depend on the less or greater force the mo
tives have on the affections, but on the more or less reason
of the choice. In a word, there is no means of taking
away the merit and demerit of human actions, but by
taking away agency, and making man passive, or, in other
terms, a machine.

But, to expose in a more popular way the futility of
this reasoning, it will be sufficient to observe that the ob
jection holds equally against all religious sanctions what
soever. And so indeed it was fairly urged by Lord
Shaftesbury : who pretended that every motive regarding
SELF tended to servilizc virtue. Without doubt, one
sort, just as much as another; a future state, just as
well as an equal providence. Nay, if we were to appre
ciate matters very nicely, it would seem, tix& a future
state icithout an equal providence (for they are always
to be considered separately, as they belong to different
systems) would more strongly incline the will, than art,
equal providence without a future state : as the value
of future above present good is immensely great. But
the human mind being so constituted, that the distance
of a good takes off proportionally from its influence, this
brings the force of the two sanctions nearer to an equality;
which at length proves but this, That the objection to
the merit of virtue holds against all religious sanctions
whatsoever. In the use of which objection, Lord
Shaftesbury was not only more ingenuous, as he urged it
against them all, but more consistent, as he urg- d it on
his doctrine of a perfect disinterestedness in our nature;

whereas

272 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett

whereas Lord Bolingbroke is amongst those who hold,
that self-love and social, though coincident, are two-
essential principles in the human frame.

" That two consistent motions act the soul,

" And one regards ITSELF, and one the WHOLE."

But we might go further, and retort upon both these noble
adversaries of religion, that the charge of mailing virtue
servile affects all moral, as well as all religious sanc
tions ; as well that, whose existence they allow, as those,
which they would persuade us to be visionary ; both these
illustrious patrons of infidelity acknowledging that moral
sanction which arises from God's making the practice
of virtue our INTEREST as well as duty. Now interest
and servility is, it seems, the same thing, with these
generous spirits.

His Lordship's third cavil to an equal providence isr
that it would RELAX GENERAL BENEVOLENCE.

— " But would there not be, at the same time, some
" further defects in this scheme ? I think there would.
" It seems to me, that these good men being thus dis-
" tinguished by particular providences, in their favour,
" from the rest of mankind, might be apt either not to
" contract, or to LOSE THAT GENERAL BENEVOLENCE,
" which is a fundamental principle of the law of nature,
" and that PUBLIC SPIRIT, which is the life and soul of
" society. God has made the practice of morality our
" interest, as well as our duty. But men who found
" themselves constantly protected from the evils that
" fell on others, might grow insensibly to think them-
" selves unconcerned in the common fate : and if they
" relaxed in their zeal for the public good, they would
" relax in their virtue ; for public good is the object of
" virtue. They might do worse, spiritual pride might
" infect them. They might become, in their own ima-
" ginations, the little flock, or the chosen sheep. Others
" have been so by the mere force of enthusiasm, without
" any such inducements as those which we assume, in
" the same case ; and experience has shewn, that there
" are no wolves like these sheep."

The case assumed, to which his Lordship objects, and
against which he pretends to argue, is that of an equal

providence

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 273

providence which exactly distributes good to virtue,
and to vice, evil. Now the present objection to such a
state is, an' please you, that this favourable distinction
of good, to the virtuous man, would be apt to destroy
his general benevolence and public spirit. These, in
his Lordship's account, and so in mine too, are the most
sublime of all virtues ; and therefore, it is agreed, will be
most highly .rewarded : but the tendency of this favour
able distinction, if you will believe him, may prove the
loss of general benevolence and public spirit. As
much as this shocks common sense, his Lordship has his
reasons, (rod has made the practice of morality our
IXTLUFST as ice 1 1 as dutij. But men, who find them
selves constantly protected from the evils that fall on
others, might grow insensibly to think themselves
unconcerned in the common fate.

God has made the practice of morality our IN
TEREST as well as duty. WJiboujt doubt he has. But
does it not continue to be our interest, under an equal,
as well as under an unequal providence? Nay, is it not
more evidently and invariably so, in the absence of those
inequalities which hinder our seeing clearly, and feeling
constantly, that the practice of morality is our IN
TEREST as well as duly ?

— But men, who found themselves constantly pro
tected from the ceils thai fail on others, might grow
insensibly to think themselves unconcerned in the
COMMON- FATE. What are those evils, under an equal
providence, which fall- on others, and from which the
good man is protected ? Are they not the punishments
inflicted on the wicked ? And how is the good man pro
tected from them ? Is it. not by his perseverance in
virtue? It is therefore impossible he should r:row un
concerned to those evils which his Lordship calls the
common fate, when he sees his interest and his duty so
.closely connected, that there is no way of avoiding those
evils but by persevering in virtue. But the name of
common fate, which he gives unto them, detects his pre
varication. He pretends to reason against an equal
providence, yet ?lurs in upon us, in its stead, a providence
zt'/iic/i fjtilj/ ;•/• •-•1ects good men \ or rather one ccrta'ai
aperies t$ :<t;f}d men] and Ica^-cs ail other to their

Vox.. XII. COMMON

274 . A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

COMMON FATE. But admit it possible for the good mail
to relax in his benevolence, and to grow insensible to
the common fate : there is, in the state here assumed,
a speedy means of bringing him to himself; and that is,
his being no longer protected from the evils that fall
on others : for when men relax in their benevolence,
his Lordship tells you, they relax in their virtue : and,
give me leave to tell his Lordship, that when men relax
in their virtue, Providence relaxes in its protection ; or, to
speak more properly, the rewards of virtue are abated in
proportion.

However, spiritual pride (lie slays) might infect the
virtuous, thus protected : and this he will prove a for*
tiori, from the case of ENTHUSIASTS; who only imagine
they have this protection, and have it not. Now, what
if we should say, it is this yeryt&thusi&stic spirit itself,
and not the visions of protection it is apt to raise, which
is the true cause of spiritual pride? ENTHUSIASM is
that temper of mind, in which the imagination has got the
better of the judgment. In this disordered state of things,
enthusiasm, when it happens to be turned upon religious
matters, becomes FAX r: and this, in its extreme,

begets the fancy of our being the peculiar favourites of
heaven. Now, every one sees, that SPIRITUAL PRIDE is
the cause, and not the effect, of the disorder. For what
but spiritual pride springing out of presumptive holiness,
could bring the fanatic to fancy himeeif exalted above the
common condition of the faithful? It is true, when he
was got thus far, the tolly which brought him hither,
might carry him further; and then, all to come would be
indeed the effect of his disorder. But suppose it was
not the enthusiastic spirit, but the visions of protection.
it is apt to raise, which is the cause of spiritual pride ; is
there no difference between a vision and a reality ?
Fancy may occasion those disorders which tact may re
move. This, I persuade myself, is the case here : the
real communication of grace purifies those passions, and
exalts them into virtues, which the strong delusion of
such a state only renders more gross and violent. And
here it may be worth while to take notice that his Lord
ship, in this objection to an extraordinary providence, from
the hurt it does to general benevolence, seems to have

had

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 275

had the Jewish people in his eye; who, in the latter
ages of their republic, were coimiionly.ckirged, and per
haps truly, with want of benevolence to the rest of
mankind : a fact, which, though it makes nothing for his
purpose, makes very much for mine, as it furnishes me
with an example to support what is here said oi fanatic
cism; an infirmity prei't- i amongst the Jews of

those ages. They had outlived their extraordinary pro-,
vidence ; but not the memory, nor even the ' effects of it;
nay, the warmer tempers were hardly brought to think it
had ceased. This rilled them with spiritual pride, as the
elect of God; a disposition which, it is confessed, tends
readily to destroy or to relax genet id benevolence. But
what now are the natural consequences, which the actual
administration of an equal providence would have on the
human mind? In this case, as in the other, a warm
temper, whose object was religion, would be obnoxious
to the common weakness of our nature, and too apt to
disgrace itself by spiritual pride : but as this is one of the
vices which an equal providence is always at hand to
punish, the cure would be direct and speedy. The re
covered votary we will now suppose to be received again
into the number of the good ; and to find himself in the
little flock and chosen sheep, as they are nicknamed by
this noble writer. Well, but his (Lmgor is not yet over;
the sense of this high prerogative of humanity might re
vive, in a warm temper, the- still unmortiiied seeds of
spiritual pride. .Admit this to be the case ; what follows ?
His pride revives indeed/ but it is only to be again
humbled: for punishment is still closely attendant on
vice and folly. At length, this holy discipline, the neces
sary consequence of an equal providence, effectually does
its work; it purifies the mind from low and selfish par
tialities, and adorns the will with general benevolence,
public spirit, and love of all its fellow creatures.

What then could support his Lordship in so perverse
a judgment concerning the state and condition of good
men under an equal providence? That which sup;,
all his other insults on religion ; his sophistical change of
the question. He objects to an equal providence (which
religionists pretend has been administered during one
period of the dispensation of grace) where £Ood men are

T 2 constantly

276 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

constantly rewarded, and wicked men as constantly
punished; and he .takes the matter of his objection from
the fanatical idea of a favoured elect (which never
existed but in over-heated brains) where reward and
punishment are distributed, not on the proportions of
merit and demerit, but on the diabolic dreams of cer
tain eternal decrees of election and reprobation, unre
lated to any human principle of justice.

But now, Sir. keep the question steadily in your eye.
and his Lordship's reasoning in this paragraph will dis
close such a complication of absurdities as will astonish
you. You will see an equal providence, which, in and
through the very act of rewarding benevolence, public
spirit, and humility, becomes instrumental in producing,
in those so rewarded, selfishness, neglect of the public,

and spiritual pride.

His Lordship's last objection to an extraordinary pro
vidence is, that it would NOT AYSWKR ITS KXD.

" I will conclude this head (says he) by observing,
" that we have example as well as reason for us, when
" we reject the hypothesis of particular providences*
" God was the king of the Jewish people. His presence
" resided amongst them, and his justice w;ts manifested
" daily in rewarding and punishing by unequivocal, signal,
" and miraculous interpositions of his power. The
" effect of all was this, the people rebelled at one true,
" and repented at another. Particular providences,
" directed by God himself immediately, upon the spot,
" if I may say so, hud particular temporal effects only,
" none general nor lasting: and the people were so little
" satisfied with this system of government, that they de-
" posed the Supreme Being, and insisted to have another
" king, and to be governed like their neighbours/'

In support of this last objection, you see his Lordship
was forced to throw off the mask, and fairly tell us what
he aimed at; that is to say, to discredit the extraordinary
providence mentioned by Moses. An equal providence,
says he, will not answer its end. What is its end?
Here, his prevarications bring us, as usual, to our dis
tinctions. — When this providence is administered for the
sake of particulars, its first end is to discipline us iu
virtue, and keep us in our duty : when administered for

the

Lett IV.] BOLIXGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 277

the sake of a community, its first end is to support the
institution it had erected. Now his Lordship, proceeding
from reason to example, gives us this of the Jewish repub
lic, to prove that an equal or extraordinary providence
does not answer one or other or both these ends.

But it is unlucky for him, that here, ^here he employs
the example, he cannot forbear, any mure than in number
less other places of his writing, to tell us that he believes
nothing of the matter- — Hoio long this theocracy may
be said to have continued (says he) / am quite uncon
cerned to know, and should be sorry to mis-spend my
time, in inquiring. — The example then is only an argu
ment ad hominem. But the misfortune is, that no laws
of good reasoning will admit an argument ad hominem on
this question, Of the EFFECTS of a HEAL extraordinary
providence; because the nature of the effects of HEAL
providence can never be discovered by the effects of a
PRETEXDED one. To say the truth, his Lordship is at
present out of luck. Tor had he indeed believed the
extraordinary providence of the Jews to be real, his own
representation of the case would, on his own principles,
have proved it but pretended. For it is a principle with
him, that where the means do not produce the end, such
means (all pretences notwithstanding) are but human in
ventions. It is thus he argues against the divinity of the
Christian religion ; which he concludes to be an impos
ture for its not having effected th-it lasting reformation of
manners, which he supposes was its principal design to
accomplish.

So far as to the CHOICE of his example. lie manages
no better in the APPLICATION' of it.

\Ve have distinguished concerning the ends of an extra
ordinary providence. Let us suppose now, that his Lord
ship takes the priucifml end of the Jewish theocracy to
be the reformation of particulars* He 'refers to their
history, and pretends to shew they were not reformed.
Now whatever other consequences may attend this sup
posed fact, the most obvious and glaring is this, That his
Lordship, in proceed ing from reason to example, has given
us 'such an example as overturns or supersedes all his
reasoning. According to his reasoning, an extraordinary
providence would tie virtue and good manners so fast

T 3 dowu

278 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

down upon every individual, that his very will would be
forced, and the merit of doing what he had it not in his
power to forbear, absolutely destroyed. You would now
perhaps expect his example should confirm this pretended
fact? Just otherwise. His example shews his fact to be
a fiction, and that men remained as bad as ever.

But I have no need of taking any artificial advantage
of his Lordship's bad reasoning. For, when we see it con
stantly opposed to truth, it is far from being an additional
discredit to it, that it is as constantly opposed to itself.

The truth indeed -is, that the great and principal end
of the JEWISH THEOCRACY was to keep that ] v(>i>le a
separate nation, under their own law and religion, till the
coming of the MESSIAH; and to prepare things for 'his
reception by preserving amongst them the doctrine of the
UNITY. Now, to judge whether the theocracy or extra
ordinary providence compassed its end, we have only to
consider, whether this people, to the coming of Christ,
did continue a distinct nation separated from all the other
tribes of mankind, and distinguished from them by the
worship of the one true God. And on inquiry, we shall
find, they not only did continue thus distinct and distin
guished, but have so continued ever since. A singularity
which has had no example amongst any other people :
and is sufficient to convince us; that there must have been
some amazing power in that theocracy, which could go
on operating for so many ages after the extraordinary
administration of it had ceased. Let'us conclude there
fore, that the having nothing to urge against the clue effi
cacy of this extraordinary providence, but that, the people
rebelled at one time and repented at another, and that
this providence had only temporary effects, is the most
ample confession of his defeat. And so much for his
Lordship's exploits in ANCIENT POLITICS.

LET us now come a little nearer to him, and consider
him in his capacity for the MODERN. Here his Lordship
shines without a rival,

<£ Whether to settle peace, or to unfold

" The drift of hollow states — besides to know

" Both SPIRITUAL POWER AND CIVIL, what ea-ch means,

< • What severs each - — — "

as

Lett. IV:] BOLING'BROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 279

as was said, by a poet* of the last age, of his turbulent
friend; who if he did not serve Li.? country better than
this politician of later date, had much more to answer for,
as by ail accounts his talents were vastly superior.

His Lordship, however, with th,e best he has, proceeds
to overturn the PRINCIPLES of the ALLIANCE KETWEEN
Ciiuacii AND STATE. But the pains he had taken, and
the opposition he had found from the ARGUMENT of the
DIVINE LEGATION, had, by the time he came upon this
second adventure, so rutfled. his temper and discomposed
his manners, that he now breaks out in all kinds of oppro
brious language, not only a^inst the svstem. but even

OS7 J > 3 *-

against the person of the Author.

To understand the nature of bis Lordship's provoca
tion, if at least it arose from this treatise of the Alliance,
it may not be improper to say a word or two of the occa
sion of that book, and of the principles on which it is
composed.

After the many violent convulsions our country had
suffered since the REFORMATION" by the rage of religious
parties (in which, at one time, liberty of conscience was
oppressed ; and at another, the established church over
turned and desolated) it pleased Divine Providence to
settle our religious rights on such fundamental principles
of justice and equity, and to secure the civil peace on
such maxims of wisdom and true policy, as most effectu
ally guarded both against the return of their respective
violations : and the means made use of were the giving,
on proper terms of security to the national religion, a
free toleration to all who dissented from the established
worship. This seemed to be <£oing as far towards per
fection in religions communion, as trie lon^ distracted
state of the Christian world would suffer us to indulge
our hopes.

But men had not been long in possession of this
blessing before they grew weary of it, and set on ibot
many inventions, to throw us back into our old disorders.
For it is to be observed with sorrow, that this reform of
the English constitution happened not to be the good
work of the CHURCH, begun in the conviction of truth,
and carried on upon the principles of chanty ; but was
* Milton.

T 4 rather

28o A VIEW OF LORD [Lett IV.

rather owing to the vigilance of the STATE; at one time,
vainly perhaps, anxious for the established religion *, at
another, wisely provident for the support of civil liberty t-
So that when succeeding dissensions in church and state
had made this newly reformed constitution the subject of
enquiry, the parties who managed the debate being those
who before had both persecuted and suffered in their
turns, the principles and tempers they brought with them
to the discussion of the question were not such perhaps
as were best fiUed either to regulate their judgments, or
to moderate their partialities. One side seemed to re
gard the TOLERATION as an evil in itself, and only a
temporary expedient to prevent a worse; while their
conduct shewed, they lay at watch for the first occasion
to break in upon it. This was enough to mislead the
other to consider the TEST LAW, which covered and
secured the established religion, as no better than a new
species of persecution : and having now no real injury to
complain of, they began to take umbrage at this shadow
of a grievance ; " To have divine worship really free, they
" said, no religious profession should be attended with
" civil incapacities : a TEST had made that distinction
" amongst God's worshippers : it was therefore to be
" set aside/' But every man saw (and perhaps the
enemies of the test were not amongst the last who saw it)
that to set aside this law, which, under a general tolera
tion, was the only security of the established church,
was exposing the national worship, to all the inroads of
a sectarian rabble. This mischievous project, arising
out of abused liberty, was at first entertained, as we may
well suppose, by the tolerated churches only. Some of
the more ingenuous of them adopted it out of fear, on the
discovery of that bigoted principle in their adversaries,
which considered toleration as only a temporary expe
dient. And where was the wonder, if those who believed
they had no security for what they had got. while such
principles prevailed, should endeavour to put it out
of the power of their adversaries to do them harm?
Others of a more politic turn cherished it from views of
ambition, and in hopes of sharing the emoluments of the
established church. It was some time before any

* Ch. II, f Will. IJJ.

member

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 281

member of the church of England joined with dissenters in
their clamours against a test /«».', or, more properly
speaking, against their own establishment. This mon
strous coalition did not happen till a warm dispute on
certain metaphysical questions* (if considered in one
light, too sublime to become the subject of human \vit;
if in another, too trilling to gain the attention of reason
able men) had started new scruples concerning church
subscription. And to get rid of this necessary engage
ment to PEACE, and acquiescence in the established reli
gion, these wise and taithful ministers of the national
worship were amongst the foremost to discredit it, and
the busiest to trample down all its fences and securities.

BIGOTRY, you see, was at the bottom of the first set
of principles ; and FANATICISM, at the top of the other.
In their separate appeals to the experience of mankind,
there was this remarkable difference; all ages had felt
the mischiefs of religious restraint and persecution ; but
there was no example, either in Pagan or in Christian
times, of the evils attending the WANT of an established
religion. The fanatics, therefore, were perpetually
urging their experience against persecution, secure in not
having the argument retorted on them. But, in this
imaginary triumph they deceived themselves ; and the
very want of examples was the greatest advantage the
bigots had over them : who if they had no instance of the
evils attending the want of an establishment, to retort
upon their adversaries, it was because such want was
never known : the necessity of a national religion for the
support of society, being so indispensable, that men even
in the wildest times, the sworn enemies of religious esta
blishments, and leagued together for their destruction,
were no sooner become able to effect their purpose, than
they found, in beginning to new-model the state, which
they had subdued by the superiority of their arms, that
there was even a necessity of supporting an established
church. Of this, we have a remarkable example in the
INDEPENDENT republic, and in the protectorship of
OLIVER; both of which, under their several usurpations,
were forced to erect PRESBYTERY, the religion they most
fyated, into a NATIONAL CIIIMICH.

* The Trinitarian controversy.

To

282 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

To proceed ; the distempers of the state still further
contributed to inflame those of the church : and, on the
accession of the present royal line to the throne, a long,
a famous, and a regular dispute concerning the powers,
bounds, and limits of the TWO SOCIETIES, was begun and
carried on by two parties of churchmen. But as the
several disputants had reciprocally assigned too much,
and allowed too little to the two societies, and had erect
ed their arguments on one common fallacy ; the main-
^ "

tainers of an establishment supported a test-law on such
reasoning as destroyed a toleration ; and the defenders of
religious liberty argued against the justice of that security
on such principles as concluded equally against a national
church.

In this ferment, mid in this embroiled condition, the
Author o£ The Alliance between Church and State found
the sentiments of men concerning religious liberty and
establishments, when he proposed his theory to their
consideration : a theory calculated to vindicate pur pre
sent happy constitution ox A PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT, by
adjusting the precise bounds of either society ; by shew
ing how they come to act in conjunction ; and by explain
ing the nature of their union : and from thence, by natu
ral and necessary consequence, inducing, on the one
hand, an ESTABLISHED RELIGION, with all its rights
and privileges, secured by a TEST LAW; and on the
other, a full and free TOLERATION to all who dissented
from the national worship.

He first shewed the use of religion to society, from the
experience and practice of all ages: he inquired from
whence the use arose, and found it to be from certain
original defects in the very essence and plan of civil
society. He went on to the nature of religion ; and
shewed how, and for what causes, it constituted a society :
and then, from the natures of the two societies, he col
lected, that the object of the civil is only the body and its
interests ; and the object of the religious, only the soul.
Hence he concluded, that both societies are sovereign and
independent; because they arise not out of one another;
and because, as they are concerned in contrary provinces,
they can never meet to clash ; the sameness of original,
or the sameness of administration, being the only causes

which

Lett IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 283

which can bring one, of two distinct societies, into natu
ral subjection to the other.

To apply religion therefore to the service of civil
society, in the best manner it is capable of being applied,
he shewed it was necessary that the two societies should
UNITE : for each being sovereign and independent, there
was no other way of applying the service of religion in
any solid or effectual manner. But no such union could
arise but from free compact and convention. And free
convention is never likely to happen, unless each society
has its mutual moiives, and mutual advantages. The
Author, therefore, from what lie hud laid down of the
natures of the two societies, explained what those motives
and advantages were. Whence it appeared that all the
rights, privileges, and prerogatives of the two societies,
thus united, with the civil magistrate at their head, were
indeed those very rights, privileges, and prerogatives,
which we rind established and enjoyed under our present
htlppy constitution in church and state : the result of this
was, that an ESTABLISHED CHURCH and a free TOLERA
TION, are made perfectly to agree by the medium of a
TEST LAW. This law therefore the Author, in the last
place, proceeded to vindicate, on the same general prin
ciples of the law of nature and nations.

You have here, Sir, a true though short analysis of
The Alliance between Church and State ; with the
principles on which the theory is conducted.

Let us now consider the account his Lordship has
been pleased to give of it. I shall take him paragraph by
paragraph, in his native disorder, as he lies: and for the
same reason that I followed a different method in con
futing his arguments against the moral attributes, which
I chose to methodize and digest. For when a disorderly
writer is tolerably clear, you may make him still clearer,
and shew his arguments to advantage, by bringing them
into order. But when such a one is beyond remedy
cloudy and confused, as our noble writer is here where
lie reasons against the book of the Alliance, this assist
ance would be suspicious : for the reader might come to
fancy that as well the obscurity as the order were of the
answerer's making. Therefore the safest as well as fairest
way, in this case, is to take the writer as you find him.

The

A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

The obscurities in thought and expression will be then
.seen to be his own ; and nothing can be objected to his
adversary, but a few repetitions, which in this method of
answering can never be avoided.

His Lordship preludes his attack upon the book and
the author with this curious narrative :

" I have heard of a sermon preached by one Doctor
" SENIOR, a Fellow of Trinity College, in Cambridge,
" before King Charles the Second, at Newmarket, in
u the days of passive obedience and non-resistance*
" and afterwards printed. His text was taken from the
" 14th, 1,5th, and i6th verses of the fourth cha-p. of
'* Exodus, or some of them ; wherein God directs MOSE.S
" to take AARON the Levite, because he knew that
" AARON could speak well to the people, and joins
" them together in commission, that they might assist
" one another mutually; that AAUON might be instead
" of a mouth to MOSES, and that MOSES might be in-
" stead of God to AARON. What other applications
" the good Doctor made of these texts, I know not. But
" I am informed by Mr. LEWIS, who has read the ser-
" mon, that he established on them a supposed Alliance
" between the Church and the State : or rather be-
" tween the Church and the King. By this alliance
" the well-spoken Levite was to instil passive obedience
" to the king, in the minds of the people, and to insist
" on it, as on a law of God ; the king, on the other
" hand, was to be the nursing father of the church, ta
" support her authority, to preserve, at least, if not
" increase, her immunities, and to keep hei; in the full
" possession of all the advantages she claimed. The
" church performed her part, and had a right, by virtue
<c of this alliance, if the king did not perform his, to
" teach this doctrine no longer, and to resume her inde-
u pendency on the state mid on him. This was the
" purport of the sermon, at least: and WA.RBUR.TON
" took his hint, POSSIBLY, from it, and turned it to,
" serve his purpose ; that is, to lay clown the same prin-
*' ciples and TO BANTER MANKIND IF HE COULD, by
" NOT drawing directly, and avowedly, from them the
" same conclusion. Dr. SENIOR'S authority is, no
^ doubt as good in this case, as that of DE MARCA or
2 " evea

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 285

" even of Bos SUET. The first, a time-serving priest,
" interested, and a great flatterer, if ever there was one,
" and who made no scruple to explain away whatsoever
*' he had found himself obliged to say in favour of the
" state. The latter was as wise, if not as cunning, as
" learned, and a much better man, though not so much
" in the favour of Mr. WAKBURTON', who gave them
46 characters in his assuming style, without knowing any
" thing of them ; and who has the impertinence to pro-
" nounce of the greatest scholar, the greatest divine, and
" the greatest orator of his a#e, that he teas a good
" sensible man. He was all I have said of him : but
*'* he was au ecclesiastic, and a subject of France."

As to this account of Dr. SENIOR, I scarce know what
to make of it, or what credit it deserves : for he who will
falsify a book in every body's hands, will hardly be very
scrupulous of what lie says of a sermon, which nobody
has heard of but his friend Mr. LEWIS. At least- if
Dr. SEX IDE was ever a man of this world, I should
fancy he must be later than where his Lordship, who is
no great chronologer, has placed him. He tells us it was
in the days of passive obedience ami non-resistance,
and that the doctrine of his stTinon was calculated for the
service of popery and arbitrary power. May we not
suppose, then, that he flourished under his Lordship's
jtuspicijx, when the church was last in danger? If this
were the case, his Lordship uses Dr. SENIOR just as he
used St. PAUL*, first sets him upon preaching passive
.obedience, ami then abuses him for his pains.

But let Dr. SENIOR live when and where he will, he
.thinks it POSSIBLE that WAIIBURTON might have taken
the hint of the Alliance from him. Yes, just as possiM-e
as that LOCKE took tiie hint of the original compact
from FILM Eii.

He assures us, however, that the authority of Dr.
SENIOR is as good as that of DE MA RCA, or even of
JBossuET. The authority of Dr. SENIOR! For what?
To support Mr. WAIUJL RTO.V'S doctrine of the Alliance,

* " By this Alliance of the Hierarchy and the Monarchy, Reli-
" gion, that should support good government alone, was employed
"'to fiupport good and bad government tuike, AS IT HAS BEES
" "

But

286 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

But where is it to be had? Suppose this difficulty to be

fot over; and Dr. SENIOR as ready at hand as DE
f ARC A or BOSSUET, and as willing to declare against
the incroachments of the church ; vet the Author of the
Alliance, perhaps, would not think it altogether so fit for
his purpose: for he tells us, that his purpose in so fre
quently quoting the acknowledgments of DE MA RCA
and BOSSUET, in favour of the state, was to shame those
protest ant divines who had contended for the indepen
dency of the church, after it became established; and
even for its superiority before.

But, of these two famous Frenchmen, The first (he
xar$0 time-serving priest, interested, and a great
flatterer— the latter was as wise if not as cunning,
as learned and a much belter man, though not so
much in the favour of Mr. JVarburion, who gave
them characters, in his assuming style, without know
ing any thing of them, and who has the impertinence
to pronounce, of the greatest scholar, the greatest
divine, and the greatest orator of his age, that HE

WAS A GOOD SENSIBLE MAX.

The Author of the Alliance, in the Advertisement to
the last edition of his book, speaking of the French trans
lator, has these words — " He supported them [the con-
" elusions] all along with quotations from the two
" famous works of DE MARC A and BOSSUET; the ono
" the wisest, and the other the MOST SENSIBLE DIVINE

/' THAT NATION EVER PRODUCED*/'

From these words, 1 leave you, Sir, to reflect upon the
truth and ingenuity of the noble writer's representation,
that BOSSUET is not so much in Mr Warburtorfs
favour as DE MARCA ; and that Mr. Warburton has
the impertinence to pronounce -that BOSSULT was A
GOOD SENSIBLE MAN. In the heavy distresses of con
troversy, many a writer has been found to misrepresent
But to do this out of mere wantonness and gaiety of
heart, and then, on the credit of his own false quotations,
to abuse and call names, is altogether in his Lordship's
manner.

But you will say, perhaps, that the IMPERTINENCE
was not in the familiarity of the commendation, but iu

* Vol. VII. p. xii. of this edition*

the

Lett. IV.] BOLINGEROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 287

the choice of the topic. It may be so ; and then we get
another rule of good writing from his Lordship, who has
already supplied us with so many : "That when the
authority of an. author is urged in a point concerning civil
and religious rights, his /er/r ;/?/?»*, his divinity, and,
above all, his eloquence should be insisted on, rather than

his GOOD SENSE."

All this is but a prelude to the combat. " The notion
" (says this great politician) of a FORMAL ALLIANCE
" between church and state, as between two independent
" distinct powers, is a very groundless and WHIMSICAL
" notion. But a fraudulent or silent compact between
" princes and priests became very real, as soon as an
" ecclesiastical order was established." The latter part
of this period is but too true ; and the theory of the
Alliance (misrepresented in the former part) was pro
posed to remedy these mischiefs. It is this theory only,
which I shall undertake to vindicate against his Lord
ship's objections.

If, by formal, he means (and what should he mean

else ?) one actually executed in form ; and supposes that

the Author of the Alliance between Church and State,

asserted the actual execution of such a one, we may, with

more justice, perhaps, apply to his Lordship what he says

of the Author, concerning DE MA RCA and BOSSIJET,

That he gives a character of the book called the.

Alliance, without knowing any thing of it. Give me

leave to quote the Author's own words — " From all this

" it appears, that our plan of Alliance is no precarious

' arbitrary hypothesis, but a theory founded in reason,

" and the invariable nature of things. For having, from

" the essence, collected the necessity of allying, and the

"freedom of the compact; we have from the same

" necessity, fairly introduced it ; and from its freedom,

" consequentially established every mutual term and

" condition of it. So that now if the reader should ask,

" where this charter or treaty of convention for the union

•" of the two societies, on the terms here delivered, is to

" be met with? we are able to answer him. We say, it

" may be found in the same archive with the famous

1 aituaNAL COMPACT between magistrate and people ;

" so much insisted on, in vindication of the common

" rights

28S A VIEW OF LORD [Lett IV.

" rights of subjects. Now when a sight of this compact
" is required of the defenders of civil liberty, they hold
" it sufficient to say, that it is enough for all the purposes
" of fact and right, that such original compact is the only
" legitimate foundation of civil society : that if there were
'* NO SUCH THING FORMALLY" executed, there was,
" virtually : that all differences between magistrate
" and people ought to be regulated on the supposition of
" such a compact ; and all government reduced to the
" principles therein laid down ; for that the happiness,
" of which civil society is productive, can only be at-
" tained by it, when formed on those principles. Now
" something like this we say of our Alliance between
" Church and State*."

Let this serve too, for an answer to his Lordship's in
sulting question in another place — " But where shall we
" look for the conditions of that original contract which
" was made between the religious and the civil
" society, I know not; unless we suppose them written
" on the back of Constantine's grant to Sylvester/'
Does his Lordship know where to look for the original
contract which was made between the prince and
people, in any place of easier access ? Or will he, when
at a loss, send us to the back of Constantine's grant to
Sylvester, for this contract likewise ?

But to proceed. If by formally, through a perverse
use of words, his Lordship means only virtually, like
the original compact between king and people ; this in
deed, the Author of the Alliance does venture to say, and
not only to say, but to prove likewise.

It is true, the foundation of the proof, in his Lord
ship's opinion, stands upon a WHIMSICAL principle: so
did the argument <*f the Divine Legation of Moses, from
the omission of a future state f- Indeed his Lordship
seems to have been as much distressed by M-HIMSICAL
divines, when he turned philosopher, as he was by
WHIMSICAL jwlitidans, while he continued a states
man^. However, the whimsical principle in question is
this, That THE CHURCH OF CHRIST COMPOSES A SOCIETY*

SOVEREIGN, AND INDEPENDENT OF THE CIVIL.

* AHianrr-, Vol. VH. pp. iff*. ifa. t See ante, p.
J See his Letter to Sir \V. Winciham,

tlOa

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 289

This principle, his Lordship rejects : and it must be
confessed, not, as is his wont, altogether absurdly : for he
who makes religion itself a phantom, can surely have little
or no idea how it should become embodied.

" Neither XATUKE nor REASON (says his Lordship)
" could evvr lead men to imagine TWO DISTINCT AK.D

" IXDEPEXDEXT SOCIETIES IX THE SAME SOCIETY.

" This imagination was broached by ecclesiastical am-
" bition."

A grave sentence ! which to me seems equivalent to
this. That neither nature nor reason could ever lead
men to imagine that OXE was TWO. In this, I readily
agree with him. But then the difficulty remains, how
such a thing could ever come to be broached (as his
Lordship says it was) by any imagination not more dis
ordered than it usually is by ecclesiastical ambition.
School-learning, indeed, might do much ; for thfcre his
Lordship h*s fixed his theological Ik'dlam : but church
ambition, he assures us, is of another mould ; which, as
it never failed, he says, to aim at, so, it never failed to
obtain, immoderate wealth and exorbitant power.
What then are we to think? That his Lordship meant,
that neither nature nor reason could ever lead men to
imagine two distinct and independent societies in the
same COMMUNITY? for community being the genus,
several sociftlks, as the species, may, indeed, be contain
ed in it. This, I am read-; to suppose, merely for my
own ease; because when his Lordship is well understood
he is always more than half confuted,

In this paragraph, then, are contained these two pro
positions :

1. Thai the church does not compose a society.

2. That it does not compose a societv independent

i - L

and sovereign.

Let us examine his reasoning on these points as it lies
in his works ; tor as disorderly as it lies, it is intended, I
assure you, to overtoil! the whole theory of the Alliance.

" A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY (says liis Lordship) BY

" WHICH IS ME A XT, ON THIS OCCASION, A CLERGY,

" is, or is not, a creature of the state. //' thejirst, it

" follows, that this order no more than others, uhich the

•" state has instituted for the maintenance of good

VOL. XII. V " government,

2oo A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

" government, can assume any rights, or exercise any
' powers, except such as the state has thought fit to
" attribute to it, and that the state may, and ought to
" keep a constant controul over it, not only to prevent
" usurpations and abuses, but to direct the public and
" private influence of the clergy, in a strict conformity
" to the letter and spirit of the constitution ; the servants
" of which, in a much truer sense, they are, than what
" they affect sometimes to call themselves, the ambassa-
" dors of God to other men. If the last is said, if it
" be asserted, that the church is in any sort independent
" on the state, there arises from this pretension the
*' greatest absurdity imaginable, that, I mean, of iinpe-
" Hum in imperio ; an empire of divine, in an empire of
" human institution."

Thus far his Lordship, who is here reasoning against
the principles laid down in the book of the Alliance.
lie introduces his dilemma with telling the reader, that
tbe Author of that book has defined a religious society,
to be the body of the clergy — A religious society, by
which (says he) is MEANT ox THIS OCCASION A CLERGY,
is, or is not, a creature of the state*.

You cannot, I believe, see this assertion without some
surprise, when you observe, that the Author of the
Alliance has defined a religious society to be A NUMBER

OF RELIGIOUS CREATURES ASSOCIATED f. WllCIl }TOU

observe, that he makes it one of the principal cares of a
religious society, to provide an order of men, to be set
apart for ministering in holy things, or in other words, a
CLERGY — " The greatest care is to be had, that the
" acts of religious worship be preserved simple, decent,
" and significative, liut this can be done only by pro-
u viding persons set apart for this office; whose peculiar
" employment it shall be to preside in, direct, and
" superintend the acts and services of religion J/' fyc.
When you observe, he makes the end of religious society
to be, salvation of souls, and one of the means, the
order of the clergy. — Lastly, when you observe, he

* So again, TJiis order of men which we CALL the Religious Society
—And again, The Religious Society, as ice have accustomed ourselves
(o CALL the Clergy.

f Alliance, pp. 55, £c. I Ibid. p. CO.

opposes

Lett IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 291

opposes the church and the clergy to each other : " It
" is unjust in the CHURCH to aim at the propagation
" of religion by force, and impertinent to aim at riches,
" honours, and powers. But what motives the CLERGY
" OF A CHURCH might have, is nothing to the purpose
" of our inquiry. We have only to consider what the
" CHURCH had, WHICH, as a religious society, consists
" of the whole body of the community, BOTH LAITY"

AND CLERGY*/1

In a word, the Author of the Alliance was at much
pains to prove that a religious society or church does not
mean the clergy, but the whole body of the faithful : and
this for two reasons, for the sake of truth in general, and
of his own system in particular.

1 . It shocks common sense to call one order or rank
in society, by the name of the society : it is little better
than calling one of the qualities of a substance, by the
name of the substance.

2. It subverted the theory of the Alliance to make
the clergy constitute the church : for then the church
could neither be a distinct society, nor independent; both
of which it must be, to make it capable of an alliance
with the state. It could not be a distinct society ; for
an order of men, as I observed just before, is the same
in politics, as a quality in physics ; the one must inhere
in a society, the other in a substance : and these being
the substrata of the other, to talk of a distinct, much
more, of the independent existence of an order, or of a
quality, is the profoundest nonsense in politics and
physics. But admitting that such a church, which, like
'J'rinculo's kingdom, consists only of viceroys and vice
roys over them, were capable of allying with the state,
the Author has shewn, in the place quoted above, that its
motives for allying would be such as the state could never
comply with, either in justice or policy.

Extreme necessity (to do his Lordship all the right we
can) forced him upon this bold and violent falsification of

* Ibid. pp. 101, 102. The very Popish clergy, nay DE MA RCA
himself, that time-serving priest and great flatterer, was more honest
(as his Lordship might have seen by the quotation at the bottom,
of this very page of the Alliance— ECCLESI.H CORPUS, EX FIDELIUM
OMNIUM COMPAGE coNSTiTuiTUR) than he chuses to represent
the body of the English clergy.

U 2 the

292 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

the doctrine of the Alliance. He saw no other way of
discrediting the opinion of an independent religious
"society, than by making it believed that sucli a society
would be an " Imperuun in imperio, an empire of
dicine, in an empire of human institution ;" a mischief,
against which the state is always on its guard. And if a
religious society signified the church, and the church only
the CLERGY, the claim to independency would imply
such an imperium. But the Author of the Alliance goes
upon other principles; he holds, that the church signifies
the whole body of the faithful ; that though this society
be independent, yet, from its independency, no such
solecism in politics can arise as am imperium in imperio.
This argument, which the Author has dawn out at large,
the noble person, in the following words, misrepresents,
perverts, and attempts to overthrow.

" An imperium in imperio (says he) is in truth so
*' expressly contained in the very terms of the assertion,
" that none of THE TEDIOUS SOPHISTICAL REASONINGS,
'" which have been employed for the purpose, can evade
'' or disguise it One of these 1 will mention, because it
" has a CERTAIN AIR OF PLAUSIBILITY, that imposes
" on many; and because, if it cannot stand a short and
u fair examination, as I think it cannot, the whole edifice
" of ecclesiastical independency and grandeur falls to the
44 ground. It lias been said then, that religious and
'' civil societies are widely distinguished by me distinct
" ends of their institution?, which imply necessarily dis-
4i tinct powers and a mutual independency ; that the end
" of the one is the salvation of souls, and that of the
*i other the security of temporal interests; that the state
" punishes overt acts, andean punish nothing else, be-
•" cause it can have cognizance of nothing that passes in
" the mind, and does not break out into criminal actions ;
" but that the church employing her influence to temper
^ the passions, to regulate the inward dispositions, and
^ to prevent sins, as well as crimes, is that tribunal at
". which even intentions are to be tried, and sins, that
f< do not ripen into crimes, nor immediately affect civil
" society, are to be punished/'

This, I will suppose, his Lordship intended as a fair

representation of the Author's argument for the indepen-

$ dency

Lett IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 293

dency of the church. But the argument, as it stands in
the Alliance, is drawn from the different powers belong
ing to the two societies ; as those powers are deduced
from their different ends. But different pov, ers implying
(liiierent administrations, they create a mutual indepen
dency; and different administrations, implying an inca*
purity of their clashing with one another, show plainly
that such an independency can never produce an iwperiuni
in imperio. This is the natural order of the argument,
as it stands in the Alliance. Let us see now, how his
Lordship represents it. He begins rightly, with the dif
ferent ends, viz. sal-cation of souls, and security of
temporal interests : but, proceeding to speak of the
different powers, adapted to those different aids. vis.
coercion in the state, and po'saasion only in the church
(from whence arises a mutual independency) he mis
takes the consequences of these powers, which are
punishment of o cert acts, sm(\ subdual ol the passions ;
he mistakes them, 1 say. lor tlie powers themselves-;
from which consequences indeed no independency ensues ;
because suhduat of tiie passions may, in his Lordship's
opinion at least, be obtained by coercive power, as well
•<&punis!iment of overt acts. An. I ir both societies have
coercive poicer, one must needs be dependent on the
other. I take notice of this mistake only to shew you,
what a poor and imperfect conception his Lordship had
of the argument of the /Illiance. Had he told us,
though in fewer words, that the Author's reasoning
against the pretence of an intper'nan in imperio arising
out of a mutual independency, was this, That the state
having coercive power, and the church having none, the
administra'ion of the two societies could never clash; so
as to induce the mischief of an imperiinn in imperio ;
had he told us this, I say, we should have seen, that at
least he understood his adversary.

But let, us consider how he goes about to answer what
he so ill represents.

" Now in answer to all this (says his Lordship) WE
" MAV DENY, with truth and reason on our side, that
" the avowed ends of religious, and the real ends of civil
" society, are so distinct as to require distinct power*,
" and a mutual independency. The salvation of souls-

u 3 " is

294 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

" is not the immediate end of civil society, and I wish it
• was not rather the pretence, than the end of ecclesias-
u tical policy; but if to abstain from evil and to do good
." works be means of salvation, the .means of salvation
" are the objects of civil government. It is the duty of
" princes and magistrates to promote a strict observa-
." tion of the law of nature, of private and public mora-
" lity, and to make those who live in subjection to them
" good men, in order to make them good citizens. For
" this purpose, the balance and the sword are put into
u their hands, that they may measure out punishment
<; to every one, who injures the community, or does
" wrong to his neighbour ; and a rigorous punishment of
" crimes, especially if it be accompanied with rewards
6 and encouragements to virtue, for both are intrusted
" to the .same men*, is the surest way not only to re-
" form the outward behaviour, but to create an habitual
" inward disposition to the practice of virtue."

We may, says his Lordship, deny that the avowed
ends of religious, and the real ends of civil society,
are so distinct. Here he contradicts his master LOCKE.
This indeed is a small matter. I shall shew he contra
dicts truth, and the whole system of human affairs, both
in the constitution of laws, and in the administration of
justice. — But before wre come to that, there is a great
deal to be done. — We may, says his Lordship, deny that
the AVOWFD ends of religious, and the REAL ends of
civil society, are so distinct, as to require distinct
powers and a mutual dependency. The avowed endsy
does he say ? Avowed by whom ? Common sense re
quires he should mean, avowed by those who go upon
the principles of the book of Alliance. But then, he
might have said real; for the avowed and the real ends
are the same : he should have said real; for the fair use
of the proposition, and the force of the argument drawn
from it, both require this word. But by what he pre
dicates of these avowed ends, viz. their not requiring

* This is said, I suppose, in opposition to what is asserted in the
book of the Alliance (to shew the imperfection of the plan of civil
power) that reward is not (as it is generally understood to be) one
of the sanctions of civil government, in the sense that punishment is
s.o. But as this is all his Lordship has to say against it, I shall
here let the matter rest between them,

distinct1

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 295

distinct powers, we see, he means avowed by corrupt
churchmen. (The salvation of souls (says he, imme
diately after) is rather the prttence than the end of
ecclesiastical policy}. And these ends are church uni
formity for the sake of spiritual dominion. Now these
avowed ends, we readily confess, cannot be obtained
without coercive power of the civil kind. Here then you
have his Lordship, after all his declamation against
spiritual tyranny, coming at last, in the true spirit of a
free-thinking politician, to profess that religious persecu
tion and coercive power are, in the order of tilings, as justly
and reasonably employed in matters of conscience, as in
the overt acts of civil life : now though this be altogether
upon principle (for what should restrain a statesman, who
believes nothing of the truth of religion, and sees all the
mischiefs of diversity of opinions, from attempting to
bring about an outward uniformity, by force?) yet you
would not have expected it in this place, where his Lord
ship is defending religious liberty, against the priestcraft
of the Alliance : nor would you have found it, had not
the distresses of controversy driven him into his native
quarters, before his time. The Alliance went on this
principle, that the church was a society, independent of
the civil, as not having coercive power like the civil. To
overturn this argument, his Lordship was forced to deny
the minor, and so unawares has brought in PERSECUTION
as one of the natural powers of the church. But to com
pass this matter neatly, and without noise, he has recourse
to his old trade, the employing, under an ambiguous ex
pression, the abuse of the thing for the thing itself. — The
avowed e fids oj religious — the real ends of civil society.
But it was so evident a truth, that the salvation of souls
was the real end of religious society, and the security of
temporal inter ests> the real end of the civil, that he
must have lost his senses who could be brought to believe
that coercive power was as proper to promote the first
as the second ; or that instruction and exhortation
vyas as proper to promote the second as the first : one or
both of which things, his assertion, that the church and
state have not distinct powers, necessarily implies : to
disguise this absurdity therefore for real, which fair

u 4 argument

296 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

argument required, he substitutes the ambiguous word,
avowed, which his had cn-ise required: and under this
cover, he dnues, that the two socl-tivs are &o dixiinct as
to require distinct j;-ot"e>-$. — Well, this however we
understand; and have thoroughly canvassed. Ikit what
mean the words that iyilcnv? — AXD A MUTUAL INTE-
PENPKNCY. The Author of the Alliance indeed had
said, that the ends of the two soeiclies were so distinct as
to require distinct powers. But lie was not so absurd
to add — and a mutual Independency ; because hide-
pendency was not the mean uf attaining an end, like
distinct powers, hut a consequence of those powers : for
if the powers, by which two societies arc administered,
be different, those societies (seeing their administrations
can never clash) must needs be independent on one
another. This is given only as a fresh instance of the
cloudy apprehension this great statesman had of a plain
argument, the argument of the Alliance^ built on the
first principles of taw and polities.

Let me now proceed with his reasoning. lie is to
prove, what he had asserted, that the two societies are
not so distinct as to require distinct pmcers. He is
writing against the book, or rather against the Author, of
the Alliance^ who lavs it. down as an acknowledged
truth, that the end of the religions is salvation of souls}
the end of the civil, security of temporal interests.
To this his Lordship replies, ilv*.! salvation of souls is only
the pretended end of the religkrus ; but it is the i;eal,
though not immediate end, of the civil. And thus he
has with great dexterity wiped out all distinction between
the two societies. I have already detected both the fraud
and the fallacy of the first part of his assertion. I come
now to the other, 'that salvation of souls is the real,
though not immediate, end of civil government. Here
the metumess of his sophistry is still more apparent, than
in the ioniicr part. It stands thus — " The immediate
end of civil government is confessed,, on all hands, to be
security of temporal interests. This is done by keep
ing men to abstain from evil, and exciting them to good
works— good works are the means of' salvation —
Therefore the means of salvation are the objects of

civil

Lett. IV.]'BOL!NGi>ROKE'S PJJljL 3S< ^PIIY. 207

civil government $ or, in other word?, the salvation of
souls is at least the real, though mediate end of civil
society."

The Author of the Alliance had obviated all this paltry
chicane in the lolloping words : " Civil government, I
" suppose, will be allowed to have been invented for the
'l attainment of some certain end or ends, exclusive of
" others: and this implies the necessity of distinguishing
" this end from others. Which distinction arises from
" the different properties of the things pretending. But
" amongst all those things which are apt to obtrude, or
" have in fact obtruded, upon men as the ends of civil
" government, there is but one difference in their proper-
" ties, as ENDS: which is this, that one of these in
" attainable by civil society only, and all the rest
" are easily attained without it. The thing then with
" the first mentioned property must needs be that
" genuine end of civil society. And this is no other
" than security to the temporal liberty and property
" of in an*."

But iris Lordship's sopliism consists in the ambiguity
of the word END; which either signifies the consequence
or issue of a mean, simply; or, the consequence and
issue, with intention and fore- thought. In the first sense
it. may be true, that salvation is the mediate end of civil
society ; but then it is nothing to the purpose. In the
second sense it is to the purpose, but not true. The
civil magistrate, all men see, had not this consequence
or issue in his thoughts ; as is evident from hence, that,
in adapting Iris punishments to the various species of un
lawful actions, he does not proportion them to the hei-
nousncss of the offence, as estimated on the principles of
natural or of revealed religion, but to their malignant
influence on civil society. A plain indication, that, when
he measured out punishments to offences, he had only
political and not religious considerations in his view. —
But you shall hear what the Author of the Alliance has
said on this subject, who had confuted his Lordship's
sophism even before he had conceived it.

" We have shewn (says this writer) that it was the
" care of (he bodies, not of the souls of men, that the

* Alliance, p. 42.

" magistrate

•jj)8 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

" magistrate undertook to give account of. Whatever
" therefore refers to the body, is in his jurisdiction ;
" whatever to the soul, is not. But, and if there be that
" which refers equally to both (as morals plainly do)
" such thing must needs -be partly within, and partly
" without his province ; that is, it is to be partially con-
<f sidered by him ; his care thereto extending so far only
" as it affects civil society. The other consideration of
'* it, namely, as it makes part of religion, being in the
*c hands of those, who preside in another kind of society,
" Again, with regard to civil practice; if we cast our eye
" on any digest of laws, we find that evil actions have
" their annexed punishment denounced, not as they are
" VICES, i. e. not in proportion to their deviation from the
" eternal rule of right; nor as they are SINS, i.e. not in
" proportion to their deviation from the extraordinary
" revealed will of God : which two things indeed coin-
" cider but as they are CRIMES, /. e. in proportion to
" their malignant influence on civil society. But the
" view in which the state regards the practice of mora-
" lity is evidently seen, in its recognition of that famous
" maxim, by which penal laws in all communities are
" fashioned and directed, THAT THE SEVERITY OF THE

" PUNISHMENT MUST ALWAYS RISE IN PROPORTION
" TO THE PROPENSITY TO THE CRIME. A maxim

" evidently unjust were actions regarded by the state, as
<e they are in themselves only; because the Law of
" Nature enjoins only in proportion to the ability of
" performance ; and human abilities abate in proportion
" to the contrary propensities : evidently impious, were
" actions regarded by the state as they refer to the will
" of God. because this state-measure directly contradicts
"•his method and rule of punishing. But suppose the
" magistrate's office to be what is here assigned, his aim
" must be the SUPPRESSION of crimes, or of those
" actions which malignantly affect society; and then
" nothing can be more reasonable than this proceeding;
"• for then *ris end must be the good of the whole, not of
" particulars, but as they come within that view.
" But the good of the whole being to be procured only
t; by tne prevention of crimes, and those to which there
" is the greatest propensity being of the most difficult

" prevention,

Lett. I\r.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 290

" prevention, the full severity of his laws must of neces-
li sity be turned against these *."

But, his Lordship goes on to inform us, What those
means arc which princes and magistrates employ to pro
cure this mediate end of civil society, the sal-cation of
souls ; and they are, he says, COERCIVE force. — For this
purpose, the balance and the sword are pat into their
hands, that they may measure out punishment to
even/ one, who injures the community, or does wrong
to his neighbour. And a rigorous punishment of
crimes, especially if it be accompanied with rewards
and encouragements to virtue, is the surest way not
only to reform the outward behaviour, but to create
an linear d disposition to the practice of virtue.

Who would have expected that it should come at last
to this, so contrary to his Lordship's assertion in the case
of an extraordinary providence, That a vigorous and
exact distribution of rewards and punishments under the
MAGISTRATE'S PROVIDENCE (which indeed is the only
one his Lordship thinks worth a rush) should be so far
from taking away merit and making virtue servile,
that it is the surest way of creating an inward dispo
sition to the practice of virtue ! i.e. the surest way of
making virtue free and meritorious. But there is some
thing marvellously perverse in his Lordship's conduct.
The exact distribution of rewards and punishments by
heaven makes virtue worthless and servile, though the
administration of Providence' be able to operate on the
mind and intention, the only way, if any, of creating an
inward disposition to the practice of virtue ; that is,
of making it free and meritorious. On the contrary, if
you will continue to believe him. the exact distribution of

•/

rewards and punishments by the civil magistrate makes
virtue free and meritorious, though the magistrate's ad
ministration be unable to operate on the mind and inten
tion, and influences only the outward act; which is (if
any be) to make virtue worthless and servile.

But to come to the point, which these observations

naturally lead to. The very means his Lordship assigns

for the promotion of this imaginary end, namely coercive

force for salvation of souls, entirely subverts his prin-

"* Alliance, pp. 43 — 45.

elplc,

300 A VIEW OF LOUD. [Lett. IV.

ciplc, and shews that salvation of souls could be no end of
civil society, since the means are in no wise calculated
to promote the end ; it not being action simply, which
intSties to the favour of God, but action, upon proper
motives. Now with these (which result into what we
call conscience), force, or coercion, is absolutely incon
sistent : force may make hypocrites, but nothing but the
rational convictions of religion can make men lovers of
virtue.

Now if it be by such kind of reasoning as this that the
whole edifice of ecclesiastical independency and gran
deur may be brought to the ground (to use his Lord
ship's big language), church power was never worth the
rearing.

To proceed. His Lordship with much gravity, tells us
next, that " A clergy might co-operate with the civil
" magistrate very usefully, no doubt, by exhortations,.
" reproofs, and example. This they might do as assist-
" ants to the civil magistrate, in concert with him, and in
<c subordination to him. To what purpose therefore
" do they claim and affect 'independency on him ?
" Greater power never did, nor can enable them to do
" greater good. Would they erect a tribunal to punish
fi intentions ? The very pretence is impertinent. — •
ct Would they erect it to • pnnivk where no injury MV
" offered, nor wrong done ? The design is unjust and
f: arbiirary. The ideas of crimes are determinate and
" fixed. The magi-Irate cannot alter them. The ideas-
" oi fti;is t*re more confused and vague; and we know
" by long and general experience, how they vary in the
". minds, or at •• the writings of casuists. Would

<c they erect such a tribunal to try the orthodoxy of

: mciixj'dih / S-eh a oi:e is erected in some countries.
" under the iuui>'.' (,; Uio mfjuisiticiv and is justly detest-
" ed in all. To whal end and purpose then can SPIRI-

4 TUAL coi/R'is and c'oj-.iicivi-: ijowr.us ATTUIWUTKW
G v serve, unless it be to make tiiein judges
iis in their own cause, when matters of intc-
rest are concerned ?'*
His Lord-.Mip, it must be reniembcred, is here reason
ing with th-.' Auihor of the AUiUiice, against his notions
of the rights of a clergy in an established church. And

tbe

Lett IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 501

the noble person's first misrepresentation, you see, is,
that amongst these rights, the claim of independency on
the state during their establishment, is one; and that the
coercive power exercised by them, under the alliance, is
exercised as inherent in their order. To what purpose
(says his Lordship) do they [the clergy] CLAIM AXU
AFFECT indcpendencij on hnu, the ciril magistrate?
And again, To what end and purpose can spiritual
courts, and coercive powers, ATTRIBUTED to the clergy,
serve ? And, as if this was not plain enough, in the very
next page, addressing himself to POPE, he says, " Amongst:
tk till the fallacies which have been employed by church-
" men, one of the most absurd has been advanced, though
" not invented *, by a paradoxical acquaintance of
" yours; and it is to maintain tin: IN HKPKXDFXCV of
" the church,* and to suppose, AT THK SAME TIAIE, a
if sort of original contract between the church and state,
" the terms uf which, every wl/hnsical writer, EVEN" THIS
•" scuimsLEii, adjusts as he please?." Falsehood and iii
language commonly go together, iiut let them go.

You shall now hear what the Author of the Alliance
holds on these two points, and from his own mouth.
First, as to the independency. — " Let us see next (says
i; he) what the STATE gsins by it [the alliance]. These
" [advantages] in a word may be comprised in ITS su-

" I'UEMACY IX MATTERS ECCLESIASTICAL. THK
" CHURCH RLSKJX1KG UP HEK 1 N i E PEN DEN C V, and

' making the magistrate her SUPREME HEAD, without
<c whose approbation and allowance, she can administer,
" transact, or decree nothing!/'

Sicondiy; as to coercive power.* — " The third and last
u PRIVILEGE THE ciiCRCii GAINS, by this alliance, is
*' the being INTRUSTED WITH A JLTRISIHCTIOX, ix-

EORCED BY COACTIVE POWER

His Lordship assures us, the Author of the Alliance
holds, that the independency of the church is retained
in an establishment : the Author himself says, that it is'
given up. His Lordship assures us. the Author hold*
an inherent coercive power in the church; the Author

* It was invented, it seems, by his friend Dr. Senior.
t Alliance, p. 153. J Ibid. p. 14$.

himself

302 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

himself says, that coercive power is a grant of the
state, during the alliance.

And here you may take notice, how greatly his Lord
ship has improved upon his masters, the Authors of the
Rights of the, Christian Church, and of the Indepen
dent /r/iig. They had ventured indeed to charge both
these doctrines on the body of the English clergy : but as
one can never be sure what an indiscreet or corrupt
member of so large a body may have said, the confuta
tion of their calumny was not so easy. His Lordship is-
more bold ; lie charges these opinions on a particular
member of the established church by name : but then he
is more fair, he puts it in the power of the person injured
to do himself justice ; for it so happens, that this person
not only denies the independency of the church under an
establishment, and all claim to inherent coercive power
whatsoever, but has laid down principles to discredit, and
rules to prevent the return of those usurpations. The
Author of the Alliance has vindicated* the English
Clergy from the prevarications of TIN DAL and GORDON ;
it had been hard, had he found no charitable hand to
vindicate him from the same calumny, when revived by
this noble Lord.

As, therefore, no independency in alliance is either
claimed or afFected ; and no inherent coercive power is
attributed to the clergy ; we will suppose his Lordship's
simple question to be, " For what end is that tribunal,
called a .spiritual court, erected? " And had he been so
candid to let the Author of the Alliance, to whom he
directs his question, speak for himself, he had not waited
for an answer. For the Author tells us, in the most con
spicuous part of his book, and in great letters, that it is

FOR REFORMATION OF MANNERS Only\. But, aS if

the Author had entirely left us to ourselves to conjecture
how he intended to employ this spiritual tribunal, his
Lordship falls a guessing : and there is no kind of absur
dity, he does not propose, as favoured by his adversary,
though they be such as his adversary had already ex
ploded.

To what purpose (says his Lordship) do the clergy
* Alliance, p. 73, & eeq. f Ibi(i- PP« 1*9, 150.

claim

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 301

claim and affect independency on the magistrate *
Greater power never did, nor can enable them to do
greater good. JVould they erect a tribunal to
PUNISH INTENTIONS? The very pretence is imper*
tinent.

Before I come to his Lordship's conjecture, give me
leave, Sir, to say one word of the happiness of his induc
tion. This tribunal, or this coercive power, which he
makes to follow independency, is so far from being pro
duced by it, that coercive power never comes into the
church till it has given up its independency. The Author
of the A Ilia nee assigns a plain reason. " The state
" (says he) having, by this alliance, bestowed upon the
< clergy a jurisdiction with coactive power, such privilege
*' would create an IMPEKIUM IN IMPKRIO, had not the
" civil magistrate in return, the supremacy of the
« church*:'

And now, to his conjecture. Is it, says he, to punish
intentions ? The Author of the Alliance says, No, it is
for 'reformation of manners only. But you understand
not half his Lordship's drift, unless you consider these
questions as proposed to insinuate, that the Author of the
Alliance, held the absurdities contained in them. So
here, for instance, you are to understand that Mr. W. held
this tribunal was to punish intentions. However, I
will acquit his Lordship of malice; it seems to be an in
nocent blunder. The Author of the Alliance did indeed
talk of a tribunal regarding irregular intentions as
criminal-., and, by ill luck, the noble person mistook this
tribunal for a spiritual court. The Author's words are
these — " The effectual correction of such evils [as arise
' from the intemperance of the sensual appetites] must
1 be begun by moderating and subduing the passions
i themselves. But this, civil laws are not understood to
" prescribe, as punishing those passions only when they
" proceed to act : and not rewarding the attempts to
" subdue them. It must be a tribunal regarding
" irregular intentions as criminal which can do thls\
( and that is no other than the tribunal of religion.
When this is done, a coactive power of the civil kind
" may have a good effect, but not till then. And who
* Alliance, p. 154.

304 A VIEW OF LOPD [Lett, IV.

" so proper to apply this coactivc power, in such cases,
" as that society, which fitted and prepared the subject
" for its due reception and application^?" This tribu
nal regarding irregular intention* as criminal, the
Author calls the tribunal of religion (jorum con-
scicntite.) and distinguishes it from that other tribunal
which is invested with coactrcc power of the civil kind,
called spiritual court* : he makes the first a preparative
to the other. Yet, strange to believe! his Lordship mis
took this tribunal of religion, so described and distin
guished, for a spiritual court: and upbraids the
Author of the Alliance for supporting a tribunal with
coercive powers, to PUXISIT IXTF.XTIONS. But we
shall see more of his Lordship's acumen, as we go along.

His second charge against the principles of the Alliance
is in these words — Would they erect this tribunal to
punish, where xo INJURY is OEFEKEU, NOR WRONG
DOXE? The design is unjust and arbitrary. The
ideas of crimes are determinate and fixed. The ma
gistrate cannot alter them. The ideas of sins are
more con fused and vague ; and we know by long and
general experience, how they vary in the minds, or at
iftyst in the writings of casuists.

To punish where no injury is offered nor wrong
done, is his Lordship's periphrasis for the punishment
t)f vague lust, which the Author of the Alliance makes
one branch of the reformation of manners, and conse
quently an object of spiritual courts. But his Lordship's
own opinion of the quality of vague lust, intimated in
this periphrasis, is but a second consideration. His prin
cipal purpose in giving it, was to discredit the tyranny of
spiritual courts, in punishing where no fault is committed.
To forget his BIBLE is nothing : but to forget his HORACE
is a disgrace indeed. Now this honest Pagan reckoned
the prohibition of vague lust, as one of the chief objects
of civil laws ;

- - - - " Fuit hasc sapicntia quondam
" Publica privatis secernere, sacra proplianis ;
" Coxcuimu PROIIIBERE VAGO ; dare jura 'mantis/'

All this is so very extraordinary, that you will not
readily believe his Lordship could design the punishment
* Alliance, pp. -94, 95.

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 305

of vague lust,, by the words — punishing where no in-
jury is offered nor wrong done ; nor would I neither,
did he not so clearly explain himself, in his curious dis
tinction between crimes and sins : which, because it was
occasioned by, and alludes to, a passage in the Alliance,
it may not be amiss previously to transcribe that passage :
" It we cast our eye on any digest of laws, we find that
" evil actions have their annexed punishment denounced,
" not as they are VICES, i. c. in proportion to their de-
•" viation from the eternal rule of right : nor as they are
*( SIN.S, •/. e. not in proportion to their deviation from the
'• extraordinary revealed will of God ; wliich two things
" indeed coincide; but as they are CRIMES, i. e. in pro-
" portion to their malignant influence on civil society *."
The Author of the Alliance said this, to shew that the
civil magistrate does not concern himself with religion, as
nic/i. His Lordship borrows the same distinction be
tween cr unes mid sins, to shew, that it is arbitrary and
unjust to punish si/is, as spiritual courts undertake to
do: for, says he, the Ideas of CRIMES are determinate
and fi.ved : the ideas of sixs are more confused and
vague* From this, it appears, that his Lordship mistook
vices, sins, and crimes, for different actions; whereas
they are the same actions under different considerations :
•cither as they respect natural light, revealed religion,
or civil laics; and so have different names imposed upon
them. The Ideas therefore of these three modifications
of forbidden actions are all equally determinate and
ived, or all equally confused and vague. But it comes
with a peculiar ill grace from his Lordship to object to
the confused and vague idea of sixs, since this idea is
formed upon the revealed will of God in the Gospel,
wliich, in a hundred places of his ESSAYS, he tells us,
coincides with the eternal rule of right ; a rule, which he
acknowledges to be the most determinate and fixed of all
things.

But he says, the 'magistrate cannot alter the ideas
of crimes, as the casuist may the idea of sins. That
is, the magistrate cannot give the name of crimes to inno
cent actions. What should hinder him? He had two
advantages above the casuist : first, coercive power :
* Alliance, p. 44.

VOL. XIL X secondly,

306 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett- IV.

secondly; the vague and confused measure to which
crimes refer j namely, to the influence of actions on soci
ety. Matter of fact confirms this observation. Look
round the world ; enquire through anticnt and modern
times, and you shall iind, that the magistrate has been
guilty of infinitely more abuse in ranging actions under
the idea of crime*, than the casuist, in ranging actions
under the idea of sins-. This was not improper to be ob
served in answer to his Lordship's EXPERIENCE, which
ushers in his old sophism, ready at every turn to help
him out, the ahuse of the tiling itself — JVe know, says
he, In/ Lug and general experience, how the ideas of
sins vary in the minds, or at least in the WRITINGS of
casuists. By which it would seem, the noble Atitlfor
knows as little of casuists, as of any other sort of learned
men, whose characters he has treated so lordly. For corrupt
casuistry does not so much consist In varying the ideas
of sins, concerning which they are gene-rally agreed, as
in contriving to evade the punishment denounced against
them.

His last conjecture about the use of an ecclesiastical
tribunal, on the principles of the Alliance, is7- that it is
erected for the punishment of opinions. JFould they
erect, says he, such a tribunal to try the orthodoxy of
men's faith ? Why no, says the Author of the ALLI
ANCE, in as plain terms as he can speak ; — NO MATTERS

OF OPINION COME WITHIN THIS SPIRITUAL JURIS
DICTION * : and he not only says it, but proves it toof.
To what end and purpose then, (says his Lordship) can
spiritual courts and coercive powers serve, unless it
be to make the clergy judges and parties in their own
cause, when matters of interest are concerned? —To
what end? The Author of the Alliance lias told him
plainly and directly; FOR THE REFORMATION OF MAN
NERS ONLY. But such an answer did not serve his
Lordship's turn. He will make the Author say as he
\\ould have him ; or injoin him silence, and answer for
hirn, himself. He insinuates therefore, in the last place,
that the end aimed at is to determine in civil matters
\vhere the temporal interest of the clergy is concerned,
where they become judges in their own cause. Hear

* Alliauce, p. 14,6. t Ibid, p, 146'. et seq.

then

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY*. 307

then what the Author of the Alliance says upon this head
likewise ; u CIVIL MATTERS, which temporal courts may
" conveniently inspect, can never belong to an ecclesias-
" tical jurisdiction. It hath been shewn, that this court
" was erected as a siiccecianeum to the civil, to take cog-
" nizance of such actions as the civil could not reach, or
" could not remedy : which shews, the state could never
" intend to put tho^e things under the ecclesiastical juris*
<c diction that fall most conveniently under its own.
" Besides, for ecclesiastical courts to ingress matters that
" belong to the civil jurisdiction, as it can possibly have
" no good use, may very possibly be attended with this
" evil, of inviting and encouraging the church to aim at
u more power than is consistent, either with her own
" good, or the good of the state. The great Founder of
" our religion said, JVho made me a judge or divider
" between you ? And what he would not assume to
" himself, he would hardly bestow upon his church : and
" that the state should ever intend to give her what was
" the peculiar right of temporal courts, is as difficult to
" suppose. We must conclude then, that such practice,
" wherever it is found, was derived not from the reason-
" able laws of this alliance, but from the authority of
" old papal usurpations *." Thus far the Author of the
Alliance', where you may find a great deal more to the
same purpose.

But his Lordship goes on with his confutation. — " By

" admitting the independency of the church on the state,

" the state acknowledges an original independency in the

" church, derived from a greater authority than her own:

' and the supposed terms of union may be construed to

" be rather concessions of the religious society to the civil,

" for the sake of order and peace, than grants of the civil

c to the religious society. Thus religion and the church

c are set on the same foot : no human authority can alter

<£ one, but must receive it in the terms in which it has

t been revealed ; and so may a good casuist prove ou

" this hypothesis, that no human authority can measure

1 out any conditions of establishment to the other. Thus

4 the state becomes no better than a coordinate, but in-

* ferior power." I once met with a philosopher of deep

* Alliance, pp. 147— 149.

x 2 thought,

>,o8 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV,

thought, who professed the same reverence for artificial
nonsense, that the Turks pay to natural folly. His
system on this point was very singular. lie supposed that
as in the material uorld there was an universal, though
very subtile fire, diffused in secret through all bodio;
which, by a late contrivance., might be allured or dra\vn
out from the most inanimate or lumpish matter, even
irom the dirty shoes of the Chronologer of Leicester, the
man who makes time of eternity ; so, in the intellectual,
that there was a certain witty spirit*, which lay dormant
in the most inexplicable nonsense ; and only wanted the
application of some engine oi analogous invention to rouse
it, and set it free. Till such a one be discovered, we can
but guess at his Lordship's meaning.

By admitting the independency of the church on
the state (says he) t lie state acknoicledgcs an original
independency in the church derived from a greater
authority than her own. If, by church, he means the
Christian church, in general, it is confessed that its inde
pendency is derived from a greater authority than what
the state claims for any of its rights. The church holding
of God immediately and in an extraordinary manner;
the state, only mediately, and in a common way. Dut
what are the consequences his Lordship would deduce
from thence? The first is, that then the supposed
terms of union may be construed to be rather con
cessions of the religious society to the civil, for the
sake of order and peace, than grants of the civil to
the religious society. The supposed terms are terms
of alliance between two independent societies. These
terms cannot, in the nature of tilings, be any other than
mutual concessions and mutual grants.- What then
does he mean, by their being construed to be rather
concessions of the religious society than grants of the
'civil ? By the supposition on which his Lordship con
descends to reason : when the church in alliance gives
up its original independency, it is without doubt a con
cession ; because it is giving up a right : and \vhen the
state in' alliance confers a coercive power on the church,
this is certainly a grant ; because an original indepen
dent religious society can have no inherent coercive
power. However, some meaning, it is likely, his Lord
ship

Lett, IV.] BO-LING BROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 309

ship had. And it seems to be this, " That if the church
have an original independency, no such alliance as is
supposed, could be made : for that the terms on the
side of the church would not be conditional but volun
tary concessions, the state having nothing to give, in return."
This would be talking sense at least, though not truth.
But, first to suppose the fact, that the terms of this union
arc mutual grants and mutual concessions, and then to
deny mutual grants and mutual concessions, is giving
such a form to his argument- as will need a first logic

o ./ o

to turn into sense, as much as the doctrine conveyed un
der it needs a first philosophy to turn into truth. Thus
much however you may see ; some cloudy conception his
Lordship plainly had, that a society of divine original
Could never enter into alliance with another, only of
human. When the sons of God came down amongst
the daughters of men, we are told they begot giants.
His Lordship betrays his apprehensions, that this coali
tion between the civil and religious societies would pro
duce an issue altogether as monstrous, a kind of STATE
LEVIATHAN. Indeed, he charges the Author of the
Alliance with being no better than a pander or procurer
in this intrigue. But whatever his apprehensions were,
his conception was altogether unworthy both of a philo
sopher and a statesman. The AUTHOR OF THE ALLI
ANCE hath shewn from the nature of things, that religion
composes an independent society: the GOSPEL, by
divine institution, hath declared the Christian religion to
be an independent society. His LORDSHIP hath shewn,
from the nature of things, that civil wants create an inde
pendent society of the civil kind : and the LAW, by divine
institution, hath declared the Jewish republic to be an in
dependent civil society. Now I would ask his Lordship,
jf nothing hindered this civil society of divine original,
from entering -foto leagues and conventions with all the
neighbouring nations, which were not, for political rea
sons, excepted byname, what should hinder this religious
society of divine original from entering into alliance
with the state ?

Another consequence his Lordship draws from ari
original indepui >>Mcy in the church is, that REUGIQN
and the ciniu'u are set on the same joot. That is,

x 3 as

310 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

as I understand him, for he might have expressed himself
better, the DISCIPLINE of the church is is unalterable as
the DOCTRINE : the inference from which is, that the state
must receive the CHURCH on the terms in which it
was revealed: from whence his Lordship draws another
consequence, that no human authority can measure out
anil conditions of establishment to the church : and,
from thence another (for his Lordship's false conceptions
arc always attended with superfetations) that ti;e ?fate
becomes an inferior power, *;r creature to the church.
All these brave consequences, we see, arise out. of this
principle, " That, in a church oi divine original the
•" discipline is as unalterable as the doctrine.'' And of
the truth of this principle his Lordship is so confident,
that he calls his adversary a stupid fe/low for not own
ing it. " The STUPID FELLOW, who advanced this para-
" dox in English, did not see how ill the parts of it hang
" together, nor that if ecclesiastical government was, by
" divine appointment, independent of civil, no such
" contract as he supposes could be made. The religious
" society, notwithstanding their known moderation, could
" not have parted from that independency AND SUPERI-
" ORITY over the civil power, which God had given
**" them."

It is true, this STUPID FELLOW did not see it. And I
don't well know how he should : since, on the other hand,
he saw it to be impossible that any such contract as he
supposes could be made, unless the church or religious
society were independent of the civil. For what contract
is it, which this Author supposes to have been made be
tween church and state ? He tells us, in express words,
it is a mutual compact by FREE CONVENTION *. Now
the entering into a free convention is at the pleasure of
the contracting parties. But parties who have this liberty,
must needs be independent on one another.

Well, but he has his reason, such as it i.s, to confound
this STUPID FELLOW. The religious society (says he)
could not have parted from that independency, AND
SUPERIORITY, over the civil power, which God had
given them. And now indeed, after much cloudy
flourishing, we are come to the point ; which is, WHETHER

* Alliance, p. 88.

A RELIGIOUS

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 311

A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY CAN PART WITH THAT INDE
PENDENCY WHICH GOD, as well as the nature of
things, HATH BESTOWED UPON IT? This is in truth a
question worth debating. But as his Lordship rarely
suffers an important proposition, which he is set either
upon denying or depraving, to pass through his hands
without first perplexing it in the expression, with an ab
surdity or an equivocation, I shall be obliged, before we
can pass forward, to free this from the Bolingbrokian em-
barras. The religious society (says he) could not have
parted from that independency AND SUPERIORITY over
the civil poicer which God hath given them. Now as
the Author of the Alliance contends only for the inde
pendency of the church before alliance, and as his
Lordship's reasoning acknowledges that the question is
only concerning independency before alliance, he must
needs suppose, by adding, AND SUPERIORITY over the
civil, that this superiority is a consequence of indepen
dency. And so, indeed, he speaks of it more plainly
just before. — Thus [i. e. from the independency of the
church] the state becomes no better than a coordinate,
BUT INFER i on, power. Now if we judge of this matter
on the principles of the law of nature and nations, supe
riority is so far from following independency, that it
cannot consist with it. For why is religious society by
nature independent (as the Author of the Alliance shews
it is) but for the reason that Author gives, that it is
essentially different from the civil, by having different
ends and means *. But there is no ground for superiority
of one person or society over another, but where some
natural relation or connexion exists between them : none
exists in this case ; therefore a pretence of superiority on
the one side, and of dependency on the other, is absurd.
However, as I am verily persuaded his Lordship did not
kno\v enough of these matters even to prevaricate neatly
in the point in question, I consider it as an innocent blun
der, arising from the following words of the Alliance,
-shamefully, indeed, misunderstood. — " Such then is the
" nature of Christ's kingdom [/. e. the Christian church]
' it is essentially framed to compose a firm and lasting
" society; it is made such by Divine appointment, and
* Alliance, pp. C'2, 0'3.

x 4 "in

312 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

" in order to fit it for public service, it is both by nature
" and institution declared SOVEREIGN, and independent
" of civil government, that it may adapt itself by free
" alliance to the various kinds of human policies *." Now
sovereign in itself and independent of civil govern
ment, this great writer hath paraphrased to signify, inde^
pendency and superiority over the civil.

— " Thalem talento non emam Milesinm :
" Nam, ad sapientiam hujus, nimius nugator fuit."

But, to come to the question; which is, WHETHER A

RELIGIOUS SOCIETY CAN PART WITH THAT INDEPEN
DENCY WHICH GOD, as well as the nature of thing**
HATH BESTOWED UPON IT. His Lordship determines
in the negative. For if, says he, ecclesiastical govern
ment was by divine appointment independent of the,
civil, the religious society could not have parted willi
that independency which God had given them.

Man was, by divine appointment, made free and
independent; therefore, according to this reasoning, he
could not part with his independency, and become subject
to civil laws. Hold, says his Lordship, man was made
free, that he might be subject to no laws but those to
which he had given his consent ; and as he needed pro
tection from laws, he had a right to part with his indepen*
dency, if he could get protection upon no other terms.
And is not this, the very case of the religious society in
question, which is only an artificial person, by nature and
institution free, and standing in need of protection ?

But his Lordship's assertion, you will find, bottoms at
last upon this principle, that DIVINE AUTHORITY REDUCES,

ALL ITS LAWS TO ONE AND THE SAME SPECIES .* aU

error which bigots zn& fanatics indeed are equally fond
of indulging; and has been indulged by then; to the in
finite disservice both of civil and of religious society : but
that a philosopher and a statesman should know so little
of the NATURE OF LAWS, is perfectly astonishing. The
first elements of his profession might have taught him,
4< That the authority by which a thing is commanded,
" makes no alteration in the essence of the thing."
Natural and positive duties retain their respective natures

* Alliance, p. 174.

ia

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 313

in the code of religion. Natural duties are eternal;
positive duties are revocable. Of these latter, some
are lasting as the dispensation to which they belong;
others only temporary Of the temporary, some cease
not till they are expressly revoked ; others cease with the
occasion that enjoined them. These last are again to he
distinguished into privileges and duties; privileges may
be receded from at pleasure; but duties must. either be
revoked, or the occasion must be plainly seen to cease.
Now the IXDEPKXDF.XCY in question, is one of those
institutions in the divine law, which ceases with the occa-<
sion ; and is, besides, a privilege, which may be receded
from at pleasure. Again, In the divine laws some things
are enjoined to be believed as truths ; others to be prac
tised as utilities. Of utilities, some arc general ; others
particular : the first of these are permanent and constant;
the second variable. Of the first, is the church's com
posing a society : of the second, is its particular form.
Thus, Jesus seemed to institute an equal ministry; the
apostles, episcopal government; and modern churches
have chosen one or the other, as best suited to the various
civil governments with which they had allied.

As Christianity was, by divine institution, a society at
large, to authorize and to enable the several churches to
give particular forms to ecclesiastical government ; so the
independency was bestowed upon it, to enable it to enter
into free alliance with the state. .When God himself
allied the Jewish church with the state, he did not leave
that religion a society at large ; neither did he ordain
it independent : he prescribed, in the minutest manner,
the form of church government; and made it dependent
on the state. But the Author of the Alliance tells his
story better. " The Christian religion (says he) was not
" only left independent of the state, by not being united
" to it like the Jewish (and being so left it must needs by
'" the law of nature be independent),; but its indepen-
" dency was likewise secured by divine appointment, in
" that famous declaration of its Founder, My kingdom
i( is not of this world, which bears this plain and ob-
*c vious sense, That the kingdom of- Christ, to be
" extended over all mankind, was not, tike the k'mg-
" dom of God, confined to the Jewish people, where

" religion

A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

" religion was incorporated with the state] and
*c therefore, of this world, as well in the exercise of it,
" as in the rewards and punishments by which it was
" admi n is t e red : but was independent of all civil
" communities', and therefore, neither of this world,
'** as to the exercise of it, nor as to the rewards and
" punishments by* which it was administered. — But
" whoever imagines that, from this independency by in-
il stitution, the church cannot convene and unite with
" the state, concludes much too fast. We have observed,
" that this property in the kingdom of Christ was given
" as a mark to distinguish it from the kingdom of God,
" that is, it was given to shew that this religion extended
" to all mankind ; and was not, like the Mosaic, con*
" fined to one only people. Consequently, that very
" reason which made it proper for the Mosaic religion
" to be united by divine appointment to the state, made
" it fit, the Christian should be left free and independent
" But for what end, if not for this, To be at liberty to
" adapt itself to the many various kinds of civil pplicies,
" by a suitable union and alliance.- — An alliance then
" we must conclude the Christian church was at liberty
" to make, notwithstanding this declared nature of
" Christ's kingdom. So far is indeed true, that it is
" debarred from entering into any such alliance with
" the state as may admit any LEGISLATOR in Christ's
" kingdom but himself [that is, a power in the magistrate
" to alter DOCTRINES]. But no such power is granted
" or usurped by the supremacy of the state*:" [which
extends only to DISCIPLINE.]

From all this it appears, that the unalterable part of
the law of Christ is the DOCTRINE : and the only alter*
able part, the DISCIPLINE : but it is the latter, with which
society, as such, is chiefly concerned, when it enters on
alliance with the church. Therefore, when his Lord
ship says, religion and the church being set on the
same foot, no human authority can alter one, but
must receive it on the terms in which it has been re
vealed, if he means, there can be no alteration in disci
pline, I have shewn he is mistaken : if he means, there
-can be no alteration in doctrine, he is certainly right ;
* Alliance, pp. 172— 174-.

and

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 315

and I consider his Lordship's observation as a complaint,
that, by the constitution of the Christian church, the
magistrate cannot tyrannize over conscience.

In the mean time we see to what little purpose this
great philosopher and statesman had read his HOOKEK;
of whom he confesses something might be learnt. Now
UOOKI-;R would have shewn him, that Divine authority
does not reduce all its laws to one and the same species.
" Positive laws (says this truly great man) are either per-
" niancnt or else changeable, according as the matter
" itself is, concerning winch they were first made. —
" Whether GOD or MAN be the maker of them, ALTER-
" ATI o\ they so far forth admit, as the MATTER dotli
" exact. Wherefore, to end with a general rule con-
" ccrning ail the laws which God hath tied men unto :

o

" those laws divine, that belong, whether naturally or
" supernaturally, either to men as men, or to men as
" they live in politique society, or to men as they are of
" that politique society which is the church, without any
" further respect had unto any such variable accident as
" the state of men, and of societies of men, and of the
" church itself in this world, is subject unto; all laws
" that so belong unto men, they belong for ever, yea al-
" though they be positive laws, unless, being positive,
" God himself which made them, alter them. Therea^
" son is, because the subject or matter of laws in general,
<c is thus far forth constant : which matter is that for the
•" ordering whereof, laws were instituted, and being in-
" stitutcd are not changeable without cause, neither can
" they have cause of change, when that which gave thern
" their first institution remaineth for ever one and the
" same. On the other side, laws that were, made for
<c men, or societies, or churches, in regard of their
<( being such as do not always continue, but may per-
" haps be clean otherwise a while after, and so may
6 be required to be otherwise ordered than before-,
" the laws of God himself which are of this nature,

' NO MAN ENDOWED WITH COMMON SENSE Will Cl'Cf

" deny to be of a different constitution J'rom the for ~
" mer, in respect of the ones constancy, and the
" mutability of the other*."

* Eccl. Pol. L. i. Sect. 15.

So

31 6 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV,

So much for this country parson. And how poorly
does his Lordship figure before him with his assertion, that
divine law ??iqkes every thing, which relates to the
church, equally unalterable I Yet this noble haran-
guer, thus ignorant of the very first elements of law, caii
dictate with the authority of an oracle, and be received
with the reverence due to one, concerning civil liberty,
church usurpations, a patriot king, and the balance of
power. But Master Hooker will tell you, how easily all
this may be done without knowing more than our
neighbours.

^-u Thus faj therefore (says he) we have endeavoured
" in part to open, of what nature and force laws are, ac-
" cording unto their several kinds : the law which God
" himself hath eternally set down to follow in his own
" works ; the law which he hath made for his creatures
" to keep ; the law of natural and necessary agents ; the
( law which angels in heaven obey ; the law whereunto,
" by the light of reason, men find themselves bound, in
" that they are men ; the law which they made by com-
" position for multitudes and politique societies of men
" to be guided by ; the law which belongeth unto each
4* nation; the law that concerneth the fellowship of all;
<£ and lastly, the law which God himself hath supernatu-
' rally revealed. It might per adventure have been
" more POPULAR AND MORE PLAUSIBLE TO VULGAR
" EARS, if this discourse had b$en spent In EXTOLLING

" THE FORCE OF LAWS, III shewing the GREAT NECES-

" SITY OF THEM, when they arc GOOD, and in AGGRA-

" VATING THEIR OFFENCE BY WHOM PUBLIC LAWS
" ARE INJURIOUSLY TRADUCED. But forasmuch US

" with such kind of matter THE PASSIONS OF MEN
" are rather stirred one way or other, than THEIR
" KNOWLEDGE any way set forward unto the trial of
" that whereof there is doubt made, I have therefore
" turned aside from that BEATEN PATH, and chosen,
" though a LESS EASY, yet a more profitable way, in
" regard of the end we propose*."

Great names, however, are still of good use to his
Lordship ; for though he cannot profit by their lights, he
ran shine at their expcnce: and, having well chicaned
* Keel. Pol. L. i. Sect. 16. ""

their

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 317

their expressions, can afterwards convert the truths con
tained in them to his evvn use. Let me give you, out of
many, one example of this kind. HOOKER and LOCKE
have been supposed to write tolerably well on the origin
of civil government. Alas; nil sine TTiesco. There is
nothing so well done, which his Lordship cannot mend.
He reproves both of them, with much solemnity, for re*
presenting mankind to themselves, like a number of
savage individuals out of society, in their natural
state, instead of considering them as members of
families from their birth. " This (he says) has made
" them reason INCONSISTENTLY, and on a FALSE
" FOUNDATION. Inconsistently, because they somc-
" times acknowledge paternal government to have pre-
" ceded civil, and yet reason about the institution of
" civil, as if men had then first assembled in any kind
'* of society, or had been subject to any kind of rule; for
" to say that the law of nature was of itself such a rule,
" and that every one of these independent inhabitants of
" the earth did or might exercise justice for himself, and
" others on those who violated the law, was language
" unworthy of Mr. LOCKE, and unnecessary to his system.
" Falsely, because it is easy to demonstrate that mankind
" never was in such a state."

To say the truth, easy enough, and like demonstrating
daylight. A man need only open his eyes to see that a
mother does not abandon her infant as soon as she has
dropt it, nor the father renounce the care of it and her.
Is it possible then that HOOKER, LOCKE, and their fol
lowers, should want to be told by his Lordship so obvious
a truth, That, before civil society, mankind did not start
up like mushrooms, a number of savage individuals at
once, but came as they could be got, and entered as they
were born, into tribes and families. Why then, you ask,
did not HOOKER and LOCKE so consider them, when
they were deducing the origin of civil society ? For very
important reasons ; and, one would think, very obvious
ones.

First, because the real origin of civil society being
equally shewn on either supposition, the truths which fol
lowed from it, were clearer seen, as they were less

embarrassed,

3i 8 A VIEW OF LOUD [Lett. IV.

embarrassed, by considering mankind before civil society,
as individuals.

But this was not all. Had they considered men before
civil society as ranked under tribes, the rights belonging
to the heads of families, thus brought into view, though
neither relative to, nor connected \sith, those of a civil
kind, might have too much countenanced that absurd
system, winch derives political rule from the patriarchal;
a system which, both for its absurdities and mischiefs, it
was the purpose of LOCKE and HOOKKII to expose and
discredit. The former therefore did judiciously, to assert,
as he might do it truly (tor the e.vercise of justice no
more belonged to fathers of families, as such, than the
exercise of regal prerogative) ; that, before the insti
tution of civil society, evert/ one of these independent
inhabitants of the earth did, or might, e.vcrcixe justice
for himself and others, on lho.se ic/trt violated the
late. Yet this, his Lordship calls language unworthy of
his master. Nay, so great a stranger is he to this whole
matter, that he declares the representation to be UNNE
CESSARY : whereas we see it was done to keep the un-
Avary from the sight of circumstances of no use to assist
their judgment, and easily abused by designing men, to
mislead them,

—But to proceed with our subject. His Lordship
£oes on against the book of the Alliance in this manner:

O C"3

: This imaginary contract, in short, whether well or ill
" made, never existed at any time, nor in any country ;
" though, to have been real, and really authorized, it
" should have been the same at all times and in all coun-
" tries where Christianity was propagated. Political
" societies make and alter and break their alliance^, as
" the varying reason of state suggests. Different orders
" of civil government in the same society change, and
" with them the whole constitution of such governments,
" as reason or passion, the interests or the dispositions of
" men determine them. But a religion given by God
" is in its nature invariable. And therefore if a reli~
" gious society with certain privileges, immunities, and
" prerogatives, be necessary to preserve it so, the order
u and constitution of buch a society must be invariable
4 <; too.

Lett IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 319

" too. The CHURCH must be established by the same
" divine authority as the RELIGION, and be by conse-
" qucnce independent of the state. But nothing of this
" kind has been. Christ's kingdom was not of this
" world. He sent out his apostles to teach, and to
<c baptize ; and the utmost power he gave them, besides
" that of working miracles to convince and to convert,
" was to shake off the dust of their feet, and to protest
" against the infidelity of those who refused to receive
" them, and the Gospel they published. The apostles
<: ordained others to accompany and to succeed them
" in the same office, the office of teaching and baptizing.
" The apostles could give no more power than they re-
" ceived; and no argument of right can be drawn from
" any thing that passed, or from any tiling that these
" men did for the maintenance of their sect, while Chris-
" tianity was a sect."

This imaginary contract (he says) never existed at
Ami time* or in any country. If lie means, ^.contract
actually and formally executed, I have answered that al
ready, and shewn, that the objection holds equally against
the original contract between king and people-, which
I suppose his Lordship allows not to be so imaginary
but that the prerogative of the one, and the rights of the
other, ought every where to be regulated on the condi
tions of it. But you shall hear the Author of the Alliance
on this matter.

0 * When I say that all regular policied states had an

" established religion, I mean no more than he would

" do, who, deducing civil society from its true original-,

" should, in order to persuade men of the benefits it

1 produces, affirm that all nations had a civil policy.

f For as this writer could not be supposed to mean that

4 every one constituted a free state, on the principles of

' public liberty, which yet was the only society he pur-

4 posed to prove was founded on truthr and productive

* of public good; because it is notorious, that the far

*' greater part of civil policies are founded on different

" principles ; or abused to different ends : so neither

" would I be understood to mean, when I say all nations

" concurred in making this unio7i, that they all exactly

* Alliance, pp. 104, 105.

" discriminated

3*0 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV,

" discriminated the natures, and fairly adjusted the
" rights of both societies, on the principles' here laid
" down; though an csitthtixhinent resulting from this
" discrimination and adjustment he the only one I would
" be supposed to recommend. On the contrary, I know
" this union has been generally made on mistaken prin-
" ciples ; or, if not so, hath degenerated in length of time ;
" by which menus the national religion in the Pagan
" world hath been most commonly a slave to the state;
" and in the Christian system, the state sometimes a slave
<c to the established church. And as it was sufficient for
" that writer's purpose, that those societies, whether
•" good or bad, proved the sense all men had of the
*' benefits resulting from civil policy in general, though
" they were oft mistaken in the application; so it is for
*c ours, that this universal concurrence in the two soci-
" eties to unite, shews the sense mankind had of the
" usefulness of such an iniion. And lastly, as that
" writer's principles are not the less true on account of
" the general deviation from them in forming civil
"' societies; so may not the plain ones of alliance here
" delivered ; though' so feu states have suffered them-
4< selves to be directed by them in practice ; nor any
" man before delivered them in speculation ; especially
" if, as in that case, so in this, we can derive such ;;//*-
" take and degeneracy from their causes. It would
" draw me too far out of my way to explain distinctly the
** causes of the mistake ; and the intelligent reader, \\lio
" carefully attends to the whole of this discourse, will not
" be at a loss to discover the most considerable of them ;
" some of which I have already hinted at; and others, I
" may possibly, in the sequel of ibis discourse, take oc-
" casion to mention. As for the degeneracy ^ we have
" observed, that the alliance is of the nature of the
" FCEDERA IX.EQUALIA : now, the common issue of
" such, €rir6tius acquaints us with, in these words;
<c Interim rerum est accidere pletwrm/tie, ul (jut
" superior cxt in fa'dere, si is POTENT r A MULTU.AI

U AN TEC ELL AT, PATLATIM l.MPERIUM PROPRIE D1C-

T U M Lr S U R P E T : P R X. S E II T I'M SI 1 ( E D U S

Dejure Belli £,- Pad*, Lib. i. cap. iii.

SIT*."

But

Lett. IV,] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 321

But if by never existed his Lordship means, that the
mutual rights and privileges of either society, which na
turally follow such an alliance, were never actually ex
ercised and enjoyed by the two societies, his assertion is
false. They are at this present actually exercised and
enjoyed by the two societies, in ENGLAND, under our
happy constitution of church and state. And it was a
principal purpose of the book of the Alliance to shew
they are so, in order to realize the theory. Here again it
may not be improper to give you the Author's words :
" We see how unreasonable and even how impolitic our
" adversaries are, when in their ill humour with establish-

c me fits, they cimse to pick a quarrel with their own ;

•' where the national religion is on a footing exactly

* agreeable to the nature of & free convention between
" church and state, on the principles of the laws of
" nature and nations. A felicity they should have
" known, that scarce any other people on the face of
" the earth can boa'st of. In England alone the origi-
" nal terms of this convention are kept up to so exactly,
" that this account of the alliance between church and

' state seems rather a copy of the church and state of
" England, than a theory, as indeed it was, formed solely
'* on the contemplation of nature, and the unvariable
" reason of things *."

To make this contract (says his Lordship) real, and
to be really authorized, it should have been the same
at all times and in ail countries where Christianity
was professed. In plain terms, right waits to receive
its nature from man's acceptance of it : or, in still plainer,
right becomes wrong when rejected. How would this
political aphorism of his Lordship's sound when applied
to the ORIGINAL CONTRACT between prince and people?
— to make it real and to be really authorized, it should
have been the same at all times and in all countries^
where civil rule had been introduced.

But political societies (he says) make, and alter and
break their alliances as the varying reason of state
suggests. If he would be here meant to speak of sucl|
which make these alterations justly, the same may be
said of the alliance between church and state. The
•* Alliance, pp. 1(>5; 166,

XII, Y Autfw

322 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV,

Author has shewn that, in this respect, the alliances of
political societies with one another, and the alliance of the
political with the religious, stand just upon the same foot
ing. " If there he" (says the Author; " more religious-
" societies than one at the time of convention, the state
" allies itself with the largest of those religious societies,
" It is fit the state should do so, because the larger the
" religious society is, where there is an equality in other*
" points, the better enabled it will be to answer the ends
" of the alliance. It is scarce possible it should be
" otherwise, because the two societies being composed
61 of the same individuals, the greatly prevailing religion
" must have a majority of its members in the assemblies
" of state, who will naturally prefer their own religion to
" any other. Hence we see the reason why the Episco-
" pal is the established church in England', and the
" Presbyterian the established church in Scotland:
" Hence too we see the reason of what was before ob-
" served, concerning the duration of this alliance : that

/ ^

" it is perpetual but not irrevocable : i. e. It subsists
" just so long as the church thereby established main-
" tains its superiority of extent; which when it loses to
*c any considerable degree the alliance becomes void.
" For the united church being then no longer able to
" perform its part of the convention which is formed on
" reciprocal conditions, the state becomes disengaged ;
" and a new alliance is of course contracted with the
" now prevailing church, for the reasons which made the
" old. Thus formerly the alliance between the Pagan
" church and the empire of Rome was dissolved ; and
" the Christian established in its place : and of late, the
" alliance between the Popish church and the kingdom
" of England was broken ; and another made with the
" Protestant, in its stead*."

Different orders of civil government, in the same
society, change (says his Lordship) ; and with them the
whole constitution of such governments, as reason or
passion, the interests or dispositions of men, determine
them. — And is it not the same in church government ?
It is here Episcopacy ; there Presbytery ; and in another
place Independency.

* .Alliance, pp. 242— 244.

But,

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 323

But, a religion given by God is in its nature inva
riable. In its DOCTRINE it is. Yes, and in its DISCI-*
PLINE likewise (says his Lordship") and thus I prove it.
If a religious society 'with certain privileges, immu
nities, and prerogative*, be necessary 10 preserve it
so, the order and constitution of such a society must
be invariable too. The inference is just, hut what
principle of the alliance (against which his Lordship is
here arguing) supposes, that one certain set of privi
leges, immunities, and prerogatives, is necessary to
preserve a religious society in that state and condition ?
This theory says, religion composed a society before it had
any of those privileges, immunities, and prerogatives ;
and will remain a society when it has lost them. For it
had none of them till it came into alliance with the state,
and will hold none of them longer than that alliance con
tinues. But if, by a strange liberty of expression, his
Lordship means, by privileges, immunities, and prero^
gatives, only CHURCH GOVERNMENT in general, so far
forth as it is a society ; I own that this is necessary to
preserve a religious society in the state and condition
pf a society : but then, give me leave to say, it does not
follow from thence, that the order and constitution of
such a society must be invariable too : because church
government may be administered by an Episcopacy, a
Presbytery, or an Independency. The specific form of
church government amongst the Jews was prescribed, and
therefore intended to be invariable, because Moscsainited
the religion to the state, under the collective name of
LAW : the specific form of church government amongst
Christians was not prescribed, and therefore none seems
intended to be invariably followed, because Jesus did not
unite his religion to the state, but left it to particular
churches to follow such as were most agreeable to the
forms of those civil societies, in which they were to be
established. For this purpose it was sufficient that he
instituted his religion, a society, by directing th-:> members
of it to hear the church, and by appointing officers as.
its organs to convey its decisions. On this matter it may
not be improper again to hear the Author of the Alliance,
who, speaking of the Jewish and Christian churches,
says, " This, both had in common, to be political societies

y 2 " by

324 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

" by Divine appointment ; but different in this, that GOD,
" for wise ends, minutely prescribed the whole mode of
" Jewish policy: and CHRIST, on the contrary, with the
" same Divine wisdom only constituted his church a
" policied society at large, and left the mode of it to
" human discretion*."

Those ends, the Author thus explains, in another place.
" The Jewish religion was, like the true natural, which
" it ratified, essentially fitted to compose a society ; and
" like the Christian, of which it was the first rudiment,
" made such by Divine appointment. But then unlike
" the Christian, in this, that it was not left independent
" of civil government, to unite with it at its pleasure, on
" terms agreed upon ; but wa- for great and wise rea-
" sons at once united to it, by (Joel himself. Which
" also he wras pleased to do, not by way of alliance as
" between two bodies that were to continue distinct, and
" might be separated, but by mutual conversion into one
" another, and perfect incorporation f."

His Lordship then owns, that if the church be esta
blished by the same Divine authority as the religion
(that is, if religion be formed into a society) it is /;?/
consequence independent of the state. I am apt to
suspect, he here grants more than he is aware of: for it
follows from this concession, that if the Christian religion
even composes a society by nature, though not by Divine
appointment, it must be independent of the state : be
cause the independency does not arise from the autho
rity which formed it, but from the nature it possesses :
and the Author of the Alliance has shewn;]; that religion
composes a society by natural right. His Lordship's en
deavour therefore to avoid the consequence of indepen
dency, by affirming that the church was not established
by the same Divine authority as the religion, would be
to no purpose even though he could prove it. However;
let us hear how he supports his assertion.

His first argument is the declaration of Jesus himself,
that his kingdom was not of this world. The question
is, Whether Christ's religion composes a society, and &
society independent? And his Lordship quotes a decla
ration of Jesus to prove it does neither, which in the very

* Alliance, pp. 163, 164. f Ib. pp. 171, 172, J Book i. c. 5.'

terms

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 325

terms imply that it does both. For what is a kingdom
but a society ? And what is the not being of this
icorld, but a declaration of independency ? Indeed the
Author of the Alliance employed weqy-lyeei of the pro
position, Christ's kingdom, to prove it was a SOCIETY;
and the attribute, its not being of this world, to prove,
that church and state are IXDEPKXDEXT of one another.
For was Christ's religion a kingdom of this world, the
consequence would be, that either the state is dependent
on the church, or the church on the state ; because, in
that case, both having COERCIVE POWER (as all king
doms of this world have) a mutual independency would
make that solecism in politics called, IMPEUIUM ix JM-
PEIUO : whereas, Christ's kingdom not being of this
world, and his apostles, as his Lordship rightly observes,
1 laving no power (besides miracles) but that of teach
ing, exhorting, and protesting against infidelity, i. e.
having no coercive power, there remained no pretence
for its dependency on the state.

His Lordship's second argument against the indepen
dency of the church is, that Jesus sent out his apostles
to teacJi, and to baptize ; and the utmost power he
gave them, besides that of working miracles to con
vince and to Lonvcrt, was to shake off the dust of
their feet., and to protest against the infidelity af
those who refund to receive them, and the Gospel tJiey
published. The apostles ordained others to accom
pany and to succeed them in the same office of teach
ing and baptizing. The apostles could give no more
power than they had receive (L

i. He is to prove that ti>e Christian religion did not
compose a society by institution. And how docs he set
to work? With an argument which shews it to be a
•society by institution, and without coercive power: the
very society which the Author of the Alliance contends
for. Jesus sent out his apostles — they ordained oi tiers
to accompany and to succeed tliem. Here a society is
plainly instituted ; for you find officers appointed ; and
they provide for a succession. — The utmost , power tlity
had was to teach and baptize those who willinglij re
ceived the, Gospel. Here all coercive power is excluded ;
that exclusion makes the society independent. What
v 3 more

A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

more may be inferred from this account (and which his
Lordship should have inferred) is, that though a society
was instituted, yet the particular form of church govern
ment was left to human discretion : but he could find no
society of Christ's appointment, where he saw no parti
cular form of church government minutely marked out,
as in the Mosaic dispensation. Though, had he found
any such, it would, when he least suspected it, have been
most to his purpose ; for of such, and only of such, he
might have said truly, that being given by God, it is in
its nature invariable.

2. His observation, that the apostles could give no
more pozcer than they had received, insinuates that the
Author of the Alliance contended for inherent coercive
pozcer in the church ; which is a gross misrepresentation
of his adversary, who expressly affirms that the church
has no such power, while unallied? and when allied, re
ceives it, in a very limited manner, from the state ; and
enjoys it no longer than the alliance continues. But
these misrepresentations are things es ential to his Lord
ship's polemics. So again, " To pretend (says he) that
" the church has a right to the former [/. e. wealth and
" grandeur] by compact or by virtue of an alliance
" with the state, would be to say whatever comes upper-
" most in a WHIMSICAL HEAD." This is to insinuate,
that the Author of the Alliance pretends that the
wealth and grandeur of the church necessarily arises
from its alliance with the state. But let him speak
for himself, and you shall hear him saying the direct
contrary — the acquisition of honours, riches, and
pozcer, could not be a motive for alliance. His
reason is, that it would be impertinent in a church to
aim at them, because they are things a church could
neither use nor profit by*."

His Lordship concludes this long paragraph in these
words — No argument of right can be drawn from any
thing that passed, nor from anything that these men
[the apostles] did for the maintenance of thtir sect,
while Christianity was a sect. His Lordship here
forgets, as usual, the personage he assumes, which is that
of a believer, who supposes, the apostles acted, in all

* Alliance, pp. 101, 102.

things,

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBPtOKFS PHILOSOPHY. 327

things, by the direction of their Master : consequently,
an argument of RIGHT MAY be drawn from every
thing that passed, and from all they did, in support
or maintenance of their sect, while Christianity was
a sect. It is true, if we suppose the apostles to be poli
ticians like his Lordship, a sort of men who put in
practice all kinds of means to support and maintain their
cause or party, no argument of rig lit can be drawn from
any thing they did or said. But when God directs the
actions and organs of his ministers in the propagation of
religion, we know from the knowledge of his attributes,
that no rights of humanity or society will be violated ;
and consequently, that from every such action an argu
ment of right may be drawn.

If, indeed, his Lordship meant no more by his pro
found observation than this, That, from what the apostles
did, to assert and maintain the independency of Christ's
religion while it remained a sect, no argument of right
can be drawn to prove it must continue independent
when it becomes established, I perfectly agree with him :
;and I have but one objection to the understanding him in
so reasonable a sense, which is, that it supports the theory
of the Alliance-, which, I presume, was not in his Lord
ship's intention. Besides, it contradicts what he so much
labours to prove, That, if the independency of the church
was of Divine institution, the church could not give it up,
when it entered into alliance.

In a word, the whole of his Lorship's reasoning against
an alliance between church and slate from the nature
of a church, may be reduced to these four propositions :

1 . If Christianity be not a society by Divine institution,
it is no society at all.

2. If Christianity be an independent society by Divine
institution, it could not give up its independency to the
state.

3. If Christianity be a society by Divine institution, a
certain form of church government must be explicitly
prescribed.

4. If such a form be explicitly prescribed, then that
form, and the discipline which belongs to it, must be as
unalterable as the doctrine; which is contrary to the
genius of this supposed alliance.

y 4 Now

328 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

Now I have shewn, that every one of these four pro
positions is utterly void of all truth and reason.

After these exploits, nothing was wanting to make
his Lordship's victory complete against alliances and
establishments, but to discredit that first and most fa
mous one of all, made by CONSTANTINE. " This great
" revolution (says he) was effected in part by circum-
" stances I have mentioned, and by others that favoured
" the growth of Christianity. The imperial authority
" did the rest, but did it ill; so ill, that the chief of those
" political views which CONSTANTINE had in making
" this ESTABLISHMENT were defeated by it, and the
" admission of a religious society into the state, in the
" manner in which he admitted it, was the cause of all
" the ecclesiastical and theological evils that have follow-
" ed from his time to ours, and that are so falsely im-
" puted to religion itself. We may be assured, that the
" SOCIETY co-operated with the COURT, to bring about
" a revolution so much to their advantage ; and thought
" themselves happy enough to be dependent, not inde-
" pendent, on the Emperor; his in&rtmente, not his
" allies, whatever appearances he might give, or suffer
" them to assume, in those solemn ecclesiastical farces,
" wherein he condescended to act, in some respects, a
" second part. — But while he recalled to his mind, as
" he did most probably, the great service religion was of
" to ancient Rome, he seemed to forget, that when that
" religion flourished, and was of so much service to the
" state, it was under the immediate inspection of the
" state. There was no council but the senate, to define
" doctrines, nor to regulate discipline. And men were
" at the head of the religious, because they were at the
" head of the civil, administration ; instead of being at
" the head of the latter, because they were at the head
" of the former. — He [Cons tan tine] rneaned that this
" [spiritual power] should be distinct from the civil;

" THAT THEY SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT OF ONE AN-

" OTHER, and both dependent on him.*'

That noblest part of legislation, the adjusting the rights
and privileges, and settling the bounds and limits of the
TWO SOCIETIES, his Lordship, as we said before, seems
much a stranger to. Indeed, every new paragraph makes

his

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 329

his ignorance but the more conspicuous by his endeavour
ing to disguise it; as his attempts are generally made at
the expence of a contradiction.

In the establishment of religion under CONST A NTINE,
the church, he says, became dependent on the supreme
civil magistrate. They thought themselves happy
enough to be dependent, not independent, on the -Em
peror-, his instruments, not his allies. Yet, in the
same breath, he tells us, that this very Emperor was
contented to act a second part to these his instruments,
or, in other words, to become theirs : nay, he expressly
affirms, that Christianity was on another footing in new
Rome, than Paganism had been in the old : now Pagan
ism, he tells us, was the instrument of the supreme
magistrate. Christianity, then, must be an ally, not an
instrument to the supreme magistrate. His Lordship
says, this establishment was ill, very ill made : however
that be, every body sees it is very ill represented. — //
defeated all Constantine's political views, all the
good he intended. It is not unlikely. We have an
example before us, in his Lordship's Essays throughout,
that his contradictions can defeat all the evil intended*,
this is doing something more, for malice is not so easily
defeated as benevolence.

But if, you ask, Why, in this account of CONSTAN-
TINE'S establishment, the church is one while made the
instrument, and another, the ally of the civil magis
trate ? I will tell you. His Lordship had decried the
ALLIANCE both in Jac-t and right. There never was,
he says, in FACT, such an alliance. To countenance
this assertion, CONSTANTINE'S establishment is repre
sented as being made on different terms ; terms whereby
the church became the tool and instrument of the civil
magistrate. But then again, he was to shew that such an
alliance was not of RIGHT, as being very mischievous to
the state : this turns the tables,; and then CONSTANTINE
meaned, that the spiritual power should be distinct
from the civil, and that they should be INDEPENDENT
OF ONE ANOTHER (for he all along misrepresents the
theory of the Alliance, as making the church keep its
independency after the union); indeed he says, — and

both

330 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

loth dependent on himself', but this was only added to
soften the absurdity. To such wretched shifts do. his
principles ever and anon reduce him: — The religious
and the civil society are independent of one another ; yet
the religious is dependent on the supreme magistrate ;
2. e. on him who represents the civil society, and is at
its head.

But now let us examine the ground-work of this
curious paragraph, without any particular regard to the
embroidery of his contradictions.

He says, the church was happy enough to he depen
dent, NOT INDEPENDENT, on the Emperor; his instru
ments, NOT HIS ALLIES. This sentence is made up of
a false insinuation, and a mistaken consequence. The
insinuation is, that the Author of the Alliance holds the
independency of the church, on the magistrate, during an
establishment. The mistaken consequence is, that if the
church be dependent, it is the instrument, not the ally,
of the state. But GROTIUS, as he is quoted in the book
of the Alliance, might have set his Lordship right in this
matter. " This (says the Author) is what GROTIUS
<c calls f&dus incequale. Inaequale F<EDUS, hie intelligo
£ quod ex ipsa vi pactionis MANENTEM PR^LATIONEM
" quandam alteri donat : hoc est ubi quis tenetur alterius
" imperiurn ac inajestatem conservare, ut TOTENTIORI
" PLUS HONORIS, inferior! plus auxilii deferatur. De
" Jur. B. Sf P. L. i. c. iii. Sect. 21 *." Hence, in the
opinion of this great lawyer, alliance and dependence are
very consistent things.

In ancient Rome (says his Lordship) there was no
council, but the senate, to DEFINE DOCTRINES, nor to
REGULATE DISCIPLINE. Now in antieot Rome it so
happened, there were no doctrines to define f. And as
to discipline, this was regulated not by the senate, but by
the colleges' of the priests. When the senate imagined
the necessities of state required the observance of religious
rites, they sent to Ihe priests for their directions concern
ing the choice and regulation of them. The senate were
the masters whether they would have any celebrated ; but
if of that they had determined, they were tied down to
* Alliance, p. 8-8. t See D-iv. Leg. B, II. Sect. 6.

the

Lett IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 331

the rules and directions of the sacred books, as the
sense of them was represented and interpreted by the
priests*."

On the whole, his Lordship assures us, that CONSTAN-
TINE established the church very ill ; and so says the
Author of the A iliance. Nay, which is more, he proves
he did so, and exv'iains the causes of his mistakes.

His Lordship's account of Constantine's establish
ment, avid the Author's account of that by an alliance,
stands thus,

1. COXSTANTINE made the church his instruments,
not his a/lies. The ALLIANCE makes the church the
ally, and not the instrument of the civil magistrate.

2. CONSTANTINE placed men at the head of the
civil administration, because they were at the head of
the religious. The ALLIANCE places men at the head
of the religious, because they were at the head of the
civil administration.

3. CONSTANTINE did not take to himself the title
of supreme head of the church under God and Christ,
The ALLIANCE makes the supreme magistrate head of
the church under God and Christ.

* When the Romans entered on a war with Philip of Macedon,
Senatus decrevit (they are the words of Livy) uti consults niajori-
bus hostiis rem diviuam fncerent quibus Diis ipsis videretur, cum
precatione ea: Quam rem, &c. lie then tells us that the consuls
made their report to the senate ; and there we find the part their
priests had in this matter — Quum pronunciassent consules; rein
divinam RITE perfectam esse, et precationem admisisse Deos

• ARUSPICES RESPONDERE, Icetaque extci csse et prolationem rinium,
victonamque et triumphum portcndi. — L. xxxi. c. 5. But the state
further ordered that the consul, to make the gods propitious,
should according to old custom make a vow : and on this occasion
we have a more explicit account of thesbaie the old Pagan church
had in this matter, by which we find it was not the senate, but the
college of priests which regulated discipline, or, if his Lordship will
have it so, defined doctrine. Civitas religiosa (says the historian) ne
quid praeterrnitteretur, quod aliquando factum esset ; ludos Jovi,
•donumque vorcre consulem jnssit. Moram voto publico Licinius

.pontifcx niaximus attu/it, qui negavit ex incerta pecuuia vovcre de-
bcre. Si ea prcunia non posset in bellum usui rsse ; reponi statim
debere, nee cum alia pecuiiia misceri. Quod nisi factum esset , votum
RITE solvi non posse. Quanquam et res, et anctor iiiovcbat ; tamen ad
COLLEGIUM FONTIFICUM refcrre con=ul jussus, si posset rectc
votum incertte pecunice suscipi. Posse rectiusque etiam esse, pon-
•tifices decrci'erunt. Vovit in eadem verba consul, prceeunte maxima
jpentifice. — L. xxxi. c. 9.

4. CON-

332 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV.

4. CONSTANTINE gave riches and coercive powet
to the church, without assuming this supremacy or
headship. The ALLIANCE, when it gave riches and
coercive power to the church, conferred the supremacy on
the civil magistrate.

His Lordship's conclusion from this long story of
CONSTANTINE is this, that :i he and his successors
" raised that spiritual tyranny, which was established
" and grown into full strength before CHARLES THE
" GREAT." And what could we expect less when
every term in the alliance ,was violated or neglected?
This was just as natural as that civil tyranny should grow
to a head, when the terms of the original contract be
tween prince and people had not been adverted to or
observed ? In a word, the mischiefs, which, his Lord
ship tells us, followed from Constant ine's establishment,
are the best recommendation of the theory of the
Alliance-, a theory formed, as it were, and fitted to
avoid arid guard against them : it has in fact done so, and
rendered our present constitution of church and state
the most happy and prosperous of any upon the face of
the earth.

At last, as if on set purpose to recommend the theory
oj the Alliance, his Lordship concludes his section con
cerning CONSTANTINE in these words: " Thus it seems
" to me that the great and fundamental error, from whence
" so many others proceeded, and which CONSTANTINO

" COMMITTED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTI-

" ANITY, was this, he admitted a clergy into an esta~
" blishment, on the same foot, on which this order
" had stood, while Christianity was the religion, and
" these men were the heads, the directors, the govern-
" ors, and magistrates of a sect, by no authority, but
" that of the sect itself. He admitted them vested with
" this authority, which might be necessary as long as
" Christians made a sect apart, out of the protection of
" the laws ; and which became unnecessary and danger-
" ous, when Christianity had a legal establishment. — The

' conduct of Constantino on this occasion must needs
" appear extremely absurd to every one who considers

c the consequences it had." Can there be a greater

encomium on the principles of the Alliance ? The

2 fundamental

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 333

fundamental error of CONSTANTINE'S establishment
was, the suffering the church to RETAIN ITS INDEPEN
DENCY. The fundamental condition' of establishment on
the theory of alliance is, that the church GIVES UF ITS

INDEPENDENCY.

After this, would you expect to hear him return again1
to his abuse of the ALLIANCE? <f The sole intention
u and sole effect of it [the theologic system of the;
" schools] was to establish an ecclesiastical empire, iin-
" der that spiritual monarch the Pope, and his spiritual
" ministers the clergy. Trtis WAS THE EFFECT OF

" THAT SUPPOSED ALLIANCE BETWEEN" THE CHURCH

AND STATE."

Before, It was CONSTANT INE and his successors,
who raited that spiritual tyranny : and it was done,
he says, by means of his establishment', which suffered
the church to retain its independency, and admitted it
on the same foot on which it had stood while it was a
sect. But now, it is the supposed alliance between
'church and state which raised this spiritual tyranny;
an alliance which will not suffer the church to retain its
dependency; or admit it on the same foot 071 which it
.stood while it was a sect.

We have seen such amazieg instances of his Lordship's
contradictions, as not to be surprised at the boldest of
them. Sometimes, when rapt in a fit of rhetoric, he
does, by his contradictions, what the man in the play did
by his ingratitude, he strives to cfvvr the monstrous
bulk of them, by a proportionable size of words;
sometimes again, to shew his utter contempt of the pub
lic, he chuses to follow the advice there given ; to let
them go naked, thai men may see thefh the better. — •
But, when he masks his double face, the falsification of
the theory of the Alliance always affords him the best
play. He constantly takes it for granted or avouches it
for a fact, throughout his whole argument against the book,
that the Author contends for and maintains the indepen
dency of the church on the. state, under an establish
ment. This brings CONSTANTINE'S establishment, and
the establishment on the principles of the ALLIANCE,
pretty much to the same thing; so that the mischiefs
ascribed to one, mav be safely transferred to the other.

And

334 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett. IV,

And here, Sir, in conclusion, the odd fortune of this
book of the Alliance is worth your notice. It had been
writ against by many nameless scribblers, before his
Lordship : and two very capital crimes had been objected
to it : the one was, That it makes the church a creature
of the civil magistrate', the other, That it makes the
civil magistrate a creature of the church. Some
insisted on the first of these charges, some on the second.
But to prevent its escaping, one furious fellow, in a thing
called a Comment on the Alliance, roundly insisted
upon both. So that his Lordship, whose care is for the
state, and the Dissenting Answerers, who are as anxious
for the church, will come in but for halves in the full
merit of this illustrious commentator.

I have now, Sir, given you, as I promised, a view of
his Lordship's POLITICAL TALENTS. The Author whom
I have defended against him, is no further my concern
than as he afforded me the occasion. Nor is there any
reason he should grow vain of the superior distinction of
being picked out to be immolated, as it were, to the FIRST
PHILOSOPHY. For let me tell him, that as I defended
him for want of a better, so his Lordship abused him
because he could not find a worse. He had personally
injured and affronted his Lordship. And to \)
insolencies, the following words allude, where his Lord
ship takes leave of his friend, in the last volume of his
never-dying works : " You have, I know, at your elbow
*' a very foul-mouthed and very trifling critic, who will
" endeavour to IMPOSE UPON YOU ON THIS OCCASION,
" AS HE DID ON A FORMER. He will tell you, again,
" that I CONTRADICT myself, Sfc. But if the dogmatic
" pedant should make this objection, be pleased to give
" him this answer," &c.

This, the curious will readily perceive, smells of the
anecdote. As the secret has been communicated to me
by a good hand, I shall not scruple to lay it before you.
It may serve at least to entertain you, in the quality of
farce to this serious piece.

Mr. POPE had permitted Lord BOLING BROKE to be
considered by the public, as his PHILOSOPHER AND
GUIDE: and in their conversations concerning the im
pious complaints against Providence on account of the

unequaj

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY.

unequal distribution of things natural and moral in the
present system, they agreed that such objections might
be well evaded on the Platonic principle of THE BEST.
This encouraged the Poet to philosophise : and the fruits
of his speculations we have in the celebrated ESSAY ON
MAN. In which, if you will take his Lordship's word,
or indeed, attend to his argument, you will find that
Pope was so far from putting his prose into verse (as has
been invidiously suggested) that he has put Pope's verse
into prose. — They agreed, as we observed, in the principle
of the best. And Mr. Pope thought they had agreed in
the question, to which this principle was to be applied.
But time has since shewn that they differed very widely.
The Essay on Alan is a real vindication of Providence,
against libertines and atheists. The Essays on the first
Philosophy are a pretended vindication of Providence
against an imaginary coniederacy between divines and
atheists. The Poet directs his argument against atheists
and libertines in support of RELIGION; — The Philoso
pher, against divines, in support of NATURALISM. But
though his Lordship thought fit to keep this a secret from
his friend, as well as from the public; yet he took so
friendly a share in the prodigious success of the Essay
on Matt) that he could not forbear making the Poet, then
alive and at his devotion, the frequent topic of his ridicule
amongst their common acquaintance, as a man who
understood nothing of his own principles, nor saw to what
they naturally tended. For the truth of this instance of
his Lordship's virtuous emulation, I appeal to a right
honourable Gentleman now living.

While things were in this state, M. cle Crousaz wrote
some malignant and absurd remarks on the Essay OH
.Afan; accusing it of Spinozism, Naturalism, and all the
heretical -isms in the Bigot's dictionary. These remarks
by.^reat chance fell into the hands of the Author of the
Divine Legation. And mere indignation at an ill-
natured caviller put him upon writing a defence of the
first epistle. Which being well received by the public,
he was induced to defend the rest on the same principles
of natural and revealed religion, against this plundering
Swiss philosopher ; frequently indeed misled by a very
faithless translation of the Essay into French verse;.

Sir. Pope,

336 A VIEW OF LORI) [Lett. IV,

Mr. Pope, who was naturally on the side of religion,
embraced the sense given to the Essay by his new Com
mentator, with the utmost pleasure and satisfaction ; as
appears by the letters he wrote on that occasion. You
will hardly suppose, his Lordship took the same delight
in them. He saw his pupil reasoned out of his hands ;
he saw (what was worse) the Essay republished with a
Defence, which put the Poem on the side of religion, and
the Poet out of the necessity of supporting himself on his
Lordship's system, when he should condescend to impart
it to him : and (what was worst of all) he saw a great
number of lines appear, which out of complaisance had
been struck out of the MS. and which, at the Commen
tator's request, being now restored to their places, no
longer left the religious sentiments of the Poet equivocal.
It was his chagrin at these changes which occasioned
his Lordship (when he NEW MODELLED the introductory
Letter to his Essays addressed to Mr. Pope} to end
it in this manner : " I cannot conclude my discourse on
" this occasion better than by putting you in mind of
" a passage you quoted to me once with great applause
*' from a sermon of FORSTEH, and to this effect, ' Where
" MYSTERY begins, RELIGION ends.' The apophthegm
" pleased me much, and I was glad to hear such a truth
fc 1'rom any pulpit, since it shews an inclination at least,
" to purify Christianity from the leaven of artificial
" theology ; jvhich consists principally in making things
*c that are very plain, mysterious; and in pretending to
" make things that are impenetrably mysterious, very
" plain. If you continue still of the same, mind, I
" shall have no excuse to make to you, j'or what
/ have written, and shall write. Our opinions
coincide. If you have changed your mind, think
again, and examine further. You will find it is the
MODEST, not the PRESUMPTUOUS enquirer, who makes
a real and safe progress in the discovery of divine
truths. One follows nature and nature's God ; that is,
he follows God in his works, and in his word ; nor
presumes to go further, by metaphysical and theolo-
gical commentaries of his own invention, than the
two texts, if I may use this expression, carry him very
evidently. — They who have done otherwise, have beer*

«< either

"

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 337

" either ENTHUSIASTS OR KNAVES." But, alas ! this
kind admonition came too late. Mr. Pope had now
got a better guide than either Fo LISTER or his LORD
SHIP. I mean, Mr. LOCKE; who, in the conclusion
of his first letter to Bishop Still ingfleet, had taught the
Poet to answer thus, " I know not any thing more disin-
" geiiupus, than not publicly to own a conviction one has
" received, concerning any thing erroneous in what one
" has printed ; nor can there, I think, be a greater offence
" against mankind than to propagate a falsehood, where-
" of one is convinced; especially in a matter wherein
" men are highly concerned not to be misled. The
" HOLY SCRIPTURE is to me, and always will be, the
" constant GUIDE of my assent: and I shall always
" hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to
" things of the highest concernment. Ana I wish I
" could say there were no MYSTERIES in it. I ac-
" knowledge there are, to me, and I fear always will be.
" But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is
" ground enough for me to believe, because God has said
" it : and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion
•" of mine, as soon as I am shewn that it is contrary to
" any revelation in the holy Scripture*."

But the Author of The Divine Legation soon after
committed a much greater offence against his Lordship's
philosophic dignity. And to this, the following words,
quoted above, more particularly allude : You have, I
know, at your elbow, a very foul-mouthed and a very
trifling Critic, who will endeavour to impose upon you
on this occasion, as he did on a FORMER.

About the year 1742, a little before Lord Bolingbroke'S
return, to England, this Critic was with Mr. Pope at T.
who shewed him a printed book of Letters on the Study
and Use of History, and desired his opinion of it. It was
the first volume of the work since published under that
name. Mr. W. on turning over the book, told him his
thoughts of it with great ingenuity. What he said to
Mr. Pope of the main subject is not material : but of the
digression concerning the authenticity of the Old Testa
ment, he told his friend very frankly, that the Author's
arguments, poor as they were, were all borrowed from
* Locke's Works, vol. i, p. 405.

VOL. XII. Z other

338 A VIEW OF LORD [Lett IV.

other writers ; and had been often confuted to the full
satisfaction of the learned world: that the Author of
these Letters^ whoever lie was, had mistaken some of
those reasonings ; had misrepresented others ; and had
added such mistakes of his own, as must discredit him
with the learned, and dishonour him with all honest men :
that therefore, as lie understood the Author was his
friend, lie could not do him better service than advise
him to strike out this dig region, a digression that had
nothing to do with his subject, and would set half his
readers against the work, which, without this occasion of
scandal, would have much ado to make head against the
other half, whenever it should appear. Air. Pope said,
his frjend (whose nan re he kept secret) was the most
candid of all writers ; and that he the Author of The
Divine Legation could not do him a greater pleasure
than to tell him his thoughts with all1 freedom on this
occasion. He urged this so warmly, that his friend com
plied, and, as they were then alone, scribbled over half
a dozen sheets of paper before he rose from the table,
where they were then sitting. Mr. Pope read what waa
written : mid, as he had a wonderful partiality for those
he loved, approved of them : ami to convince bis friend
(the Scribbler, as my Lord rightly calls him) that he did
iso, he took up the printed volume, and crossed out the
whole dig region. The remarks were written, as you
may well suppose, with all the civility Mr. W. was likely
to use to a friend, Mr. Pope appeared so much to reve
rence: but the word prevarication, or something Hke it>
ch^nee-J, it seems, to escape his pen. The papers were
sent to Paris: and received with unparalleled indignation.
Littte broke out; but something did: and Mr. Pope
found he had not paid his court by this officious piece of
service. However, with regard to the writer of tli*
papers, all was carried, when his Lordship came over,
with singular complaisance; such as men use when their
design is to draw on those whose homage they propose to
gain. In the mean time, his Lordship was meditating
'and compiling an angry, and elaborate answer to this pri
vate, hasty, and impertinent, though well-meant, scribble :
and it was as much as they could do, who had most in
fluence over him, to prevail with him at length to burn
12 - it.

Lett. IV.] BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY. 339

it. For the truth of all this. I might appeal to a noble
person, one of the greatest characters of this, or indeed of
any age ; who being much courted by his Lordship (for.
superior virtue will force homage frorn the most unlike)
wan for some time able, and at all times most desirous,
of restraining the extravagance of that Ji-rs^ philosophy,
which he detested and despised.

rjfhe event has since shewn, that it had been happy for
h}s Lordship's reputation, had the advice to strike out the
digression been approved. Fpr it js this which first
sunk him in the popular opinion; and .made men over
look the merit of the very best of ail his compositions.

Mr. Pope, however, was still flattered and caressed-
And the vengeance treasured up against him for the im
piety of erasing those sacred pages, did not break out till
the Poet's death : then indeed it came forth with redoubled
vehemence, and on the most ridiculous pretence. porje
had, as his Lordship pretended, unknown to him, printed
mi edition of the Patriot Prince, or Patriot King, (fpr
it had two titles, as lib Lordship's various occasions
required) a very innocent thing, which might have been
proclaimed by the common crier, without giving the least
umbrage or offence. To say the truth, it was a mere
school-declamation, which, in great pomp of words, in
forms us of this secret, That if a Prince could but
once be. brought to love his country, he would always
act for the good of it. As extraordinary as this dis
covery appears, there was much odd practice employed
to give a colour of necessity for the publishing it. How
ever, published it was, and the memory of Pope traduced
in so cruel, so scandalous a manner, that the reader is
suffered to conclude, even CURLL himself could not have
acted a more infamous or rascally part : for it must be
owned, his Lordship has dealt one equal measure to his
COUNTRY, his RELLOIOX, and his FRIEND. And for
what was all this outrage? To speak the worst of the
offence, for one of those private offices of indiscreet good
will, which generous men are always ready to forgive,
even when they see themselves most incommoded by it.

The public stood amazed. And those who had any
regard for the Poet's memory, waited with impatience to
see, which of his old friends would rescue it from his

z 2 Lordship's

340 A VIEW, &e. [Lett. IV.

Lordship's talons. Contempt, I suppose, of so cruel a
treatment, kept them all silent. However, the same
contempt at length provoked an anonymous writer to
publish a letter to the Editor of the Patriot King;
•for his Lordship had divided himself into the two person
ages of Editor arid Author. This letter, written with
all the respect due to his rank and character, he thought
fit to ascribe to the Author of The Divine Legation ;
so that you need not wonder if it exposed the suspected
writer to all his Lordship's rage, and to all the ribaldry of
his sycophants; of which, some, that was said to pass
through this great man's hands, was in language bad
enough to disgrace even gaols and garrets.

This, Sir, is the anecdote I promised you. And now
I shall release you from so tedious a subject. I have
completed my View of his Lordship's Philosophy ;
which I chose to address to YOU in compliance with his
challenge ; who appeals, for the truth of all he advances,
from artificial theology and school-learning, to the
breast of the PLAIN HONEST MAN,

" Slave to no sect, who takes no private road,
" But looks through nature up to nature's God ;""

HJM whose heart is filled with the love of God and man.
To this tribunal he appeals ; and to this I have now
brought him. What he will gain by it, YOU, whom he
has made his judge, must now tell us. I greatly suspect,
that of all his principles, one only is likely to escape your
censure : and with this, as I would part with him upon good
terms, I shall conclude : it breaks out unexpectedly from
amidst the corruption of party politics ; and in all likeli
hood was ingendered by them — SOME MEN THERE ARE,

THE PESTS OF SOCIETY I THINK THEM, WHO PRETEND
A GREAT REGARD TO RELIGION IN GENERAL, BUT WHO
TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF DECLAIMING PUBLICK-
LY AGAINST THAT SYSTEM OF RELIGION, OR AT LEAST
AGAINST THAT CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH IS
RECEIVED IN BRITAIN *. / d7?l, &[C.

* Dissertation on Parties, 8vo. edit.

[341

11 E M A 11 K S

ON

MR. DAVID HUME'S ESSAY

ON

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF RELIGION*:'

REMARK I,

TH E purpose of this ESSAY is to establish NATU
RALISM on the ruins of RELIGION; of which,
whether under Paganism and Polytheism, or under Reve
lation and the doctrine of the Unity, Mr. HUME professes
to give the NATURAL HISTORY.

And here let me observe it to his honour, that, though
he be not yet got to THEISM, he is however on the ad
vance and approaching tcrthe' borders of it ; having been
in the dregs of Atheism when he wrote his Epicurean
arguments against the being of a God. Sometime or
other he may come to his senses A few animadversions
on the 7£.v,sY/j/ before us may help him forwards. The
thing is full of curiosities : and the very title-page, as
I observed, demands our attention. It is called,
" THE NATURAL HISTORY OF RELIGION."

You ask, why he chuses to give it this title. Would
not the Moral history of Meteors be full as sensible as
the Natural history of Religion ? Without doubt.
Indeed had he given the history of what he himself would
pass upon us for the only true Religion, namely, NATU
RALISM, or the belief of a God, the Creator and Physical
Preserver, but not Moral Governor of the world, the title
of Natural would have fitted it well, because all morality
is excluded from the idea.

* See the Introductory Discourse to this Edition of Bishop
\Yarburton's Works, Vol.i, pp.65 to (><).— Ed.

z 3 But

342 REMARKS ON HUMES

But this great philosopher is never without his reasons.
It is to insinuate, that what the world calls religion, of
which he undertakes to give the history, is not founded in
the JUDGMENT, but in the PASSIONS only. However,
the expression labours miserably, as it does through all
his profound lucubrations. , And, where is the wonder
that he, who disdains to think in the mode of common
sense, should be unable to express himself in the pro
prieties of common language ?

As every inquiry which regards religion (says that

respectable personage) is of the utmost importance,

there are two questions in particular which challenge

our principal attention., to wit, that concerning its

foundation in reason, and that concerning its ORIGIN

JN HUMAN NATURE. page 1. 1

Here, we see, he aims at a distinction. And what he
aims at is not hard to find. The question is, whether he
has hit the mark. I am afraid not. And then the dis
covery of his aim is only the detection of his ignorance.
In a word, it is a distinction without a difference.

If man be rightly defined a rational annual, then
his nature, or what our philosopher calls human nature,
must be a rational nature. But if so. a FOUNDATION
IN REASON and an ORIGIN IN HUMAN NATURE are not
two different predicates, but one and the same, only in
different expressions. Do I say, therefore, that our
philosopher had no meaning, because he wtis unable to
express any? Far be that from the reverence due to
this rectifier of prejudices. My objection at present is
not to his theology but his logic. By origin in human
nature he meant, origin in the fancy or the passions.—
For that religion, which has the origin, here designed, is
what the world calls RELIGION ; and this he resolves into
fanaticism or superstition : as that religion which has
its foundation in reason is what the world calls NATU
RALISM, the religion of philosophers like himself, and
which he endeavours in this Essay to establish.

In his third section, at the l6th pa»'e, he makes UN
KNOWN CAUSES the origin of what men call religion,
that religion which his History pretends to investigate.—
" These UNKNOWN CAUSES,'* he says, " become the
" constant object of our hope und fear 3 and while the

" passions

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 343

** passions are kept in perpetual alarm by an anxious
"" expectation of the events, tlie imagination is equally
" employed in forming ideas of those powers, on which
" we have so entire a dependence." He then goes on to
acquaint us with the original of these UNKNOWN CAUSES*
" Could men anatomize nature, according to the most
" probable, at least the most intelligible, philosophy, they
" would find, that these causes are nothing but the par-
" ticular fabric and structure of the MINUTE PARTS OF

" THEIR OWN BODIES AND OF EXTERNAL OBJECTS ;

41 and that, by a regular anil constant machinery, all the
41 events are produced, about which they are so nuich
*s concerned. But this philosophy exceeds the compre-
11 tension of the ignorant multitude/' p. 1 7.

Here we see the original of these unknown causes is
nothing but the result of MATTER and MOTION. And
again, " The vulgar, that is, indeed, ALL MANKIND-, a
" few excepted, being ignorant and uninstructed, never
" elevate their contemplation to the heavens, or penetrate
" by their disquisitions into the, SECRET STRUCTURE OF

" VEGETABLE OB ANIMAL iiODIES; SO as to dJSCOVCr

" a supreme mind or original providence, which be stow -
" ed order on every part of nature. They consider these
" admirable works in a more confined and selfish view ;
" and finding their own happiness and misery to depend
" on the secret influence and unforeseen concurrence of
" external objects, they regard with perpetual attention
" the UNKNOWN CAUSES, wbkh govern «ll these natural
" events, avid distribute pleasure and pah), good and ill,
' ' by their powerful, but silent operation. The u x KI\ o w N
" CAUSES are still appealed to, at every emergence; aerd
" i» tins general appearance or con-iiisjal iiuage, are the
t( perpetual objects of human hopes and tears, wishes

( and appreliensions. 13y degrees, the active imagjna-
<c tion of men, uneasy in this abstract conception of ob-
" jects, about which it is incessantly employed, begins to
" render them more particular, and to clothe them in

* shapes more suitable to its natural comprehension. It
" represents them to be sensible, intelligent beings, like
" mankind ; .actuated by love and hatred, and flexible by
if gifts and entreaties, by prayers and sacrifices. HENCK.

344 REMARKS ON HUME'S

" THE ORIGIN- OF RELIGION j and hence the origin of
" idolatry or polytheism" pp. 54, 55.

The few excepted out of the whole race of mankind
are, we see, our philosopher and his gang, with their
pedlar's ware of matter and motion, who penetrate by
their disquisitions into the secret structure of vegeta
ble and animal bodies, to extract, like the naturalist in
Gulliver, sunbeams out of cucumbers ; just as wise a
project as this of raising religion out of the intrigues of
matter and motion.

All this shews how desirous our Essayist was of not
being misunderstood : as meaning any thing else than
naturalism (or the belief of a Creator and Physical Pre
server, but not Moral Governor) by the religion he would
recommend in the place of that phantom, whose physical,
or rather metaphysical, history, he is writing. For this
phantom of a religion, which acknowledges a moral
governor, arises, he tells us, from our ignorance of th^
result of matter and motion, caballing in the minute
parts of vegetable and animal bodies.

The sum then of all he teaches is this; that that reli
gion, of which he professes himself a follower, and which
has its foundation in reason, is NATURALISM; and,
that that religion which all mankind follow, a few ex
cepted, and of which he undertakes to give a natural
history, is nothing but superstition and fanaticism,
having its origin in human nature ; that is, in the
imagination and the passions only.

REMARK II. — This fully justifies the censure, which
has been passed upon him for his History of Great
Britain; namely, that he owned no RELIGION but what
might be resolved into SUPERSTITION or FANATICISM;
having represented the established episcopal church, and
the tolerated presbyterian form, under the names and
the ideas of superstition and fanaticism. Indeed (to do
hifn justice) though with much offence, yet without much
malignity and contrary to his intention. --For he inge
nuously enough confessed, that he gave his History that
attic seasoning for no other end than to fit it to the palate
of a very polite people ; whose virtues, havingjonly reach
ed him at a distance, had, as is usual, been much ex
aggerate^

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 345

asjgerated. To make amends, however, for this false
step, he thought proper to give an ample apology for his
conduct towards the close of the second volume of his
History. And this containing something more than an
insinuation that he believed, what his Natural History
of Religion shews he does not believe, namely, the truth
of Christianity, I shall take leave, without any suspicion
of being thought to go out of my way, to consider it para
graph by paragraph.

This sophism, says he, of arguing from the abuse of
am) thing, against the use of it, is one of the grossest,
and at the same time the most common to which men
are subject. The history of all ages, and none more
than that of the period which is our subject, offers us
examples of the abuse of religion : and we have not
been sparing in this volume, more than in the former,
to remark them. But whoever would from thence
draw an inference to the disadvantage of religion in
general, would argue very rashly and erroneously*.

Thus he begins his apology: and would not every
reader of him naturally believe that he was quoting the
words of an aniinadverter upon him, in reproof of this
very sophistry; which he was going to answer? For
who was it, that had been drawing this inference to
the disadvantage of religion, but our wise historian
himself; who had acknowledged no religion but one or
other of these specieses, superstition or fanaticism ; and
had done his best to shew of what infinite mischief both
of them were to society ? The reader may believe what be
pleases (and if he be a reader of Mr. Hume, he will find
exercise enough for his faith) ; but, this sage observation
is our historian's own. And the pleasantry of it is, you
are obliquely requested to consider it as a reproof, not of
his own malice, but of the folly of his readers, who under
stood their historian to be in earnest when he gave this
picture of the religion of his country ; whereas they had
read him to little purpose, if they did not see him to be in
the number of those who throw about them firebrands and
death, and then say, am I not in jest ? However, to be
fair, I am ready to excuse his readers in this (perhaps
they can be excused in little else), for it is not to be
* Hist, of Great Britain, vol. ii. pp. 449, 450.

disguised

34<5 REMARKS ON HUME'S

disguised that their master does indeed make, the abuses
of religion and religion itself to be one and the same
thing. Ail things considered, therefore, I cannot but
take this introduction to his apology to be the pleading
guilty with the insolent air of an accuser, and, under the
circumstances of a convict, talking die language of his
judge.

However, though in his first volume of History he
neither spoke of, nor supposed any other religion than
what might be comprised either under superstition or
fanaticism, yet here, in the second, he does indeed bring
us acquainted with another, and defines it thus; The
proper ojjice of religion is to reform metis lives, to
purij'y their hearts, to in force all moral duties, and
to secure obedience to the laws of the civil magistrate.
Now, .was Mr. David Hume only playing the philoso
pher, I should take this to be no more than the definition
of a mere moral mode, known by the name of a divine
philosophy in the mind-, something fluctuating in the
brain of these virtuosi, and ennobled with the title of
natural religion : but as he is writing history, and the
History of Great Britain, where the religion of Jvsux,
as he has since learnt, is yet professed, I can hardly per
suade myself that he can mean any other, than a religion
whose abode is in the heart, and which expatiates into
virtuous practice; and is therefore indeed capable of
performing all these good things he speaks of. But why,
then, when he had heard so much of those bugbear coun
terfeits, superstition and fanaticism, was there not one
word slipt in, in recomraendation of this reforming
religion ? One word, in mere charity, for the honour
of his dear country? That strangers at least (jbr IM?
writes at large, and for all mankind) might not suspect, if
ever indeed there was a true religion amongst us, that these
impostors and counterfeits had drivta her quite away.
Well ; be not too hasty. To this he has an admirable
answer; and you shall liave it in his own words — While
it [i. e. the true species of religion which he had just
defined] pursues these salutary purposes, its opera"
tions* though infinitely valuable^ are secret and silent >
and seldom come under the cognizance of history.
The adulterate species of it alone, which inflames fac*

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 347

fion, animates sedition, and prompts rebellion, distin
guishes itself on the open theatre of the rcorld, and
is the great source of revolutions and public convul
sions. ^The historian thercjore has scarce any occasion
to mention any other kind of religion, and he may
maintain the highest regard for true piety, even while
he e.rpo.'ief ell the abuses of the false.

So it seems, that what reforms wen's lives, purifies
their hearts, inforces moral duties, and secures obe
dience to the I cites of the cii'it magistrate, is not worth
a wise historian's notice. If it were, lie gives a very
cogent reason why hd should bring it to the notice of his
readers likewise, for he tells us that the effects of this are
SECRET and SILENT. Should not the historian therefore
lend a tongue to this powerful but modest directress of
hiifiKih life, and bring her in all her lustre into our
acquaintance? But she seldom comes under the cogni-
zattce of history. More shame for these false masters
of the ceremonies who so scandalously abuse their office.

Then it is, the historian shines when he celebrates that
adulterate species of religion, which inflames j action,
animates edition, and prompts rebellion : for then it
is that to these public mischiefs he may add his own, and
under the cover of the adulterate species inculcate to
the people that all religion is either superstition or
fanaticism.

If this was not his purpose, and he had no other
design than to write sober history, how could it ever
enter into his head, that it was not at least equally his
business to explain to us what that thing is which
makes society happy, as what that is which makes it
wretched and miserable? But from the honest man let
us turn to the able writer; for in that light too he seems
to have failed. It appears to me a matter of much greater
importance that we should be brought acquainted with
true religion and its blessings, than with the false and
ail its mischiefs : because how shall we be able to avoid
the latter, under our ignorance of the former, without
running into the opposite extreme, and professing no
religion at all? Now, though this perhaps is what our
historian would be at, yet he has found, by experience,
his readers are not so ready to follow as he is to lead.

Had

345 REMARKS ON HUME'S

Had our historian only consulted the dignity of his
subject, in this too he would have found a great differ
ence; or if he could not, a great example at least was
t>efore his eyes, to have pointed out that difference ; Lord
BACOV, in his History of Henry VII. This, which in
many respects is a model for this kind of writing, is much
larger and more precise in the account of those laws by
which Henry laid the foundation of a flourishing and
happy kingdom, than of the insurrections and rebellions
which disturbed his own reign. Had he taken our
Author's route, and incurred the censure so justly due to
it, I apprehend he had made a very foolish figure both
amongst his contemporaries and posterity, by an apology
of this kind. The proper office of LAWS is to reform
'men's lives, to in force all moral duties, and to secure
obedience to the civil magistrate, ; but while they
pursue their salutary purposes, their operations,
though infinitely valuable, are secret and silent, and
seldom come under the cognisance of history. LAW
LESS RAGE alone, which inflames faction, animates
sedition, and prompts rebellion, is what distinguishes
itself on the open theatre of the world, and is the
proper province of the historian. Suppose this great
historian, and he too was a philosopher, had executed
what he once projected, the history of his illustrious
mistress, are we to believe that because Walsingham's
salutary, operations were done in secrecy and in silence,
that there he would let them have lain, as not coming
under the cognizance of history, and only busied him
self in a circumstantial detail of the rogueries and turbu-
lencies of the sons of Loyola? Would he not have
gained more honour to himself, and procured more benefit
to his reader, by revealing and explaining all the wheels
and movements of that political machine, from which, as
from the urn of a demi-god, flowed abundance and felicity
on his country, than by unravelling the intrigues of the
Jesuits, which spread sedition, rebellion, and murders,
all around them ?

But to see how differently men's heads arc framed even
amongst great historians. TACITUS laments bitterly
that his fortune had thrown him in an age, when there
was nothing to write of but these horrors, faction, sedi
tions,

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 349

tions, public convulsions and revolutions. " Opus
" aggredior opimum casibus, atrox pneliis, discors sedi-
" tionibus, ipsa etiarn pace saevum : quatuor principes
<c ferro ihtercmpti : tria bell a ci villa, piura externa, ac
-" plerumque permixta." Our Christian historian riots
in these calamities ; and thinks that what inflames fac
tion, animates sedition, prompts rebellion, and distin
guishes itself on the open theatre of the world, is the
only thing becoming the dignity of history.

In a word, the offence he gave was for calling the
Christian religion, superstition 'and fanaticism. He
says, it was false religion, not the true, which he thus
qualifies. He is asked, then, how he came to say so
much of the false, and nothing of the true ? His answer
is, That the true does every thing in secrecy and silence.
The greater occasion therefore was there for him to reveal
< this noble mystery ; for he tells us that both its aims and
operations are injinitely valuable. If therefore he be
for keeping it hid, like a court-secret, or if, in his own
words, it comes not under his cognizance, we must
conclude, that cither he knows little of the matter, or that
he believes less.

In conclusion, his own apology has reduced him to this
dilemma. If he says, he intends the definition of religion
here given for the definition of thq Christian, hovv came
he to comprise all religion, as he. does in the tirst volume
of his History, under the names of superstition and
fanaticism ? He there mentions no oilier species ; and
so great a philosopher could not be guilty of an imperfect
v enumeration. If he says, he means natural religion
by his definition ; he only fixes the charge against him
the more strongly, namely, irreverence and contempt of
Revelation.

REMARK III. — But from his Civil let us return to his
Natural History ; and see how he supports his thesis.
He-tloes it by something between history and argument.
He calls it both : and some perhaps will think it neither.

The belief of one God, the physical preserver but not
moral governor of the universe, is, what we have shewn
our philosopher dignifies with the title of the primary
principles of genuine theism and religion. Now, if the

belief

350 REMARKS ON HUME'S

belief of one God, a moral governor, was prior in time
to polytheism, it will follow, that NATURALISM or the
belief of one God, a physical preserver only, is iwtgemiiiie
theism and religion. Because in his endeavour to
prove polytheism the first in time, he has shewn the ina
bility of mere uninstructed man to rise up to this know
ledge, on the first essay of his reason; the consequence
of which is, that if the infant world had this knowledge, it
must have been taught them by revelation, and whatso
ever is so taught, must be- true,

But it is become the general opinion (which, though
it has been a long while a growing, our philosopher hopes
very speedily to eradicate) that a belief of one God, the
moral governor, was the first religion ; induced thereto
by the express assertion of an ancient book confessedly
of as good authority as any other record of very remote
antiquity.

Our philosopher's business therefore is to disprove the
fact. And how do you think he sets about it ? You
see there are but two ways. Either to prove a priori,
and from the nature of tilings, that polytheism must be
before theism ; and then indeed he may reject history and
record: or else a posteriori, and from antient testimony ;
in which case, it will be incumbent on him to refute and
set aside that celebrated record which expressly tells us,
theism was the first. Our honest philosopher does
neither. He insists chiefly on antient testimony, but is
as silent concerning the Bible, as if no such book had
ever been written.

Lord Bolingbroke before him had employed this very
medium of the priority of polytheism to theism, to inforce
the same conclusion, namely, NATURALISM ; but know
ing better how to reason, and being perhaps at that moment
less disposed to insult common sense in so profligate a
manner, he labours all lie can to depreciate the authority
of the Bible. But our North British philosopher despises
his reader too much to stand upon punctilios with him ;
he roundly affirms that all antiquity is on his side ; and,
as if Moses had no human authority because he allows
bim no divine, he will not condescend so much as to do
him the honour, he has done Sanchoniathon, of quoting

him,

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 351

him, though it was in order, to confute him. But you
shall hear his own words, because his egregious dishonesty
has led him into as ridiculous an absurdity.

" As far as writing or history teaches, mankind, in
" antient times, appear universally to have been poly-
" theists. Shall we assert, that, in more antient times,
" before the knowledge of letters, oV the discovery of
*• any art or science, men entertained the princples of
" pure theism : that is, while they were ignorant and
" barbarous, they discovered truth : but fell into error,
" as soon as they acquired learning and politeness." p. 4.

Shall we assert, says he.' Why, nobody ever asserted
that theism was before polytheism, but those who gave
credit to their Bible. And those who did so can easily
evade his difficulty, that it is not natural to think that
before the knowledge of letters, or the discovery of
any art or science, men entertained the principles of
pure theism ; because this Bible tells us, that the first
man did not gain the principles of pure theism by a know
ledge of letters or the discovery of any art or science,
but by REVELATION". But this man, who had run into
unlucky mistakes before concerning the state of religion
in South Britain, believed in good earnest that we had
burnt our Bibles, and that therefore it would be less gene
rous to insult its ashes, than to bury them in silence.
This, I think, can only account for that virtuous assur
ance where he say*, that AS FAR AS WRITING OR IMS-
TORY REACHES, MANKIND IN ANTIENT TIMES APPEAR
UNIVERSALLY TO HAVE BEEN POLYTIIEISTS. Alld

what system do you think it is, of the origin of mankind,
which he espouses, instead of the Mosaic, to prove that
polytheism was the first religion? No other, I will
assure you, than the old Egyptian nonsense, which at
tempts to teach that men first started up like mushrooms.
In a word, the men, on whose principles this wonderful
logician argues, never questioned the truth of his thesis.
To them therefore all this bustle of a discovery is ridicu
lous and impertinent. And those who dispute the fact
>vith him, the religionists, he leaves in possession of all
their arguments. So they laugh at it as an idle dream,
raised on the absurdest of the atheistic principles, the
Epicurean.

To

352 REMARKS ON HUME'S

To this ridicule, the reader sees, our philosopher ex
poses himself, even if we believe him to be here speak
ing of pure theism, in the proper sense of the words j
that is, of the belief of a God, the moral governor of the
world. But ridicule may not be all which this mighty
t heist deserves. For what, if our philosopher should
mean by his pure and genuine theism, to which he
denies a priority of being, his favourite NATURALISM .?
I should not be surprised if he did : it is but running his
ifsual philosophic course, from knavery to nonsense.

The reader, as he goes along, will see abundant reason
for this charge. An Essay, then, so devoid of all manly
sense,, and even plausibility of reasoning, can afford a
remarker no other opportunity of entertaining the public
with him, than that oi drawing the picture of some of his
characteristic features, some of the predominant qualities,
of which he is made up. 1 shall therefore present the
public with a few specimens of his philosophical virtues,
his reasoning, his consistency, his candour, and his
modesty ; and all these promiscuously, as they rise in the
natural disorder of his Essay.

REMARK IV. — " Convulsions in nature, says he,
" disorders, prodigies, MIRACLES, though the most op-
" posite to the plan of a wise superintendent, impress
" mankind with the strongest sentiments of religion; the
" causes of events seeming then the most unknown and
" unaccountable." p. 44-

Our philosopher forgets himself. He owns and ad
mits the plan of a wise superintendent; this plan is
essential to his NATURALISM. He owns and admits the
actual existence of convulsions in nature, disorders, and
prodigies] for these conform to his great principle of
EXPERIENCE, his only rule of credit, and which there
fore should be his rule" of right. Yet these convulsions,
disorders, prodigies, are, he tells us, most opposite to
the plan of a wise superintendent. Which in plain
English is neither more nor less than, " That a wise su-
pejintendent crosses and defeats his own plan."

You ask, how he fell into this absurdity? Very natu
rally. He was betrayed into it by his childish prejudice
to MIRACLES: which happening to cross .a hurt imagina
tion, while he was in the neighbourhood of prodigies, as

mountains

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 353

mountains and giants always met together in the rencoun
ters of Don Quixote, he would not let them pass without
carrying with them some mark of his resentment. And
having shewn, in a book written for that good purpose,
that MIRACLES were most opposite to the plan of a
wise superintendent, lie was not content to brand mira
cles alone with this infamy, but (so dangerous it is to be
found in ill company) he charges the same villany, on
convulsions in nature, disorders, arid prodigies, things
in themselves very innocent, and by old experience known
to have existed.

Thus a laudable zeal against his capital enemy, MIRA
CLES, happening to be ill placed, this great philosophic
detection of one of the prime master-wheels of supersti
tion labours with immovable nonsense.

REMARK V. — But now I have mentioned our Author's
aversion to miracles, it may not be improper just to take
notice, in passing, of that capital argument, which he and
Lord Bolingbroke have borrowed from Spinoza against
them. " It is, that they are incredible, because con-
" trary to all experience, and to the established course
" of nature."

• But is not this an admirable argument ? A circum
stance is urged against the reality of miracles, which must
necessarily attend miracles, if there ever were any : their
essence consisting in their being effects produced con
trary to the common course of nature ; and their end in
their being effects contrary to experience. For could
they be esteemed the immediate work of the Lord of
Nature, if they did not control nature? Or, could they
be esteemed the extraordinary declaration of his will, if
not contrary to our experience of the common course of
nature ?

REMARK VI. — There is a strange perversity in the
arrangement of our Author's philosophical ideas, occasion
ed by the vain affectation of singularity.

Nothing hath been more uncontrovertedy either in

antient or modern times, than that the notion of the

Unity, amongst the Pagans, arose from their philosophers*

No, says this penetrating sage, it came from the people :'

'• VOL. XII. ° A L and

3V>4 REMARKS ON HUME'S

and that by tlie most natural progress in the world.
" Men's exaggerated praises and compliments still swell
" their Ideas upon them; and elevating their deities to
" the utmost bounds of perfection, at last beget the
" attributes of UNITY and infinity, simplicity and spiri-
« tuality.'y .p. 55-

" THE PEOPLE sure, the people are the sight."

Turn this people to the south, and you see them fall
down before dogs and cats and monkeys. Place them to
ths north, and they worship stocks and stones. But give
them once an eastern aspect, and they shoot out into
praise and panegyric, which presently produces a first
Cause. It is pity but we could leave them here in quiet
possession of their glory. It is not my fault that we
cannot. Our philosopher seems to be oppressed with his
own discovery. Though the people might, in this man
ner, find out the/*>.$'£ Cause, yet he is sensible they knew
not what to do with it, when they had it They would
not leave their false gods for the true ; they could not
bring both to a good understanding; they had neither
skilfnor address to associate them together; and the true
God was neither to be praised or panegyrised into an
alliance with the false. What was to be done? Some
philosophic fetch, much above the people, was, as he
rightly observes, necessary to complete the system of
paganism. This the philosophers performed, and finish
ed all' with a master-stroke.

" Such refined ideas, being somewhat disproportioned
" to VULGAR COMPREHENSION, remain not long in their
" original purity ; but require to be supported by the
" notion of inferior mediators or subordinate agents,
". which interpose between mankind and their supreme
" deity. These derni-gods or middle beings, partaking
." more of human nature, and being more familiar to us,
" become the chief objects of devotion, and gradually
" recal that idolatry, which has been formerly banished
" by the ardent prayers and panegyrics, of timorous in-
" digent mortals." pp. 55, 56.

Thus the vulgar, you see, m their high flights of praise

and panegyric, rose up to the discovery of & first Cause;

13 while

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 355

while a set of wiser men are called in to restore the mob
of middle deities to their pristine honours: and this, to
suit the objects of worship to vulgar comprehension.

Now shallow men, like you or me, would say, why all
this bustle and the bandying about of an unjointed system?
Why did not one set of workmen undertake the w^hole ?
Or, if there were need of coadjutors, how came the parties
to act in so preposterous a manner, that the people as
sumed to themselves what belonged to the philosophers,
the discovery of the first Cause', and the philosophers
undertook what belonged to the people, the discovery of
demi-gods and middle beings ? Or. will he say, that
the people did both? Discovered the Unity in their
blind, timorous and indigent state, and, when they were
so well informed, struck out, in a lucky moment, their
gross system of polytheism ?

He may say what he will ; but nobody shall persuade
me but that an Author, who makes so great a figure him
self in the various walks of philosophy, would have given
the honour of the whole to his own profession ; could it
have been done without dimming and impairing, in so
capital a manner, the illustrious character of an original
thinker.

REMARK VII. — " The Getes (says our historian)
" affirmed Zamolxis their deity to be the only true god ;
" and asserted the worship of all other nations to be ad-
" dressed to fictions and chimeras." p. 53.

This assertion contradicts all antiquity, as well as the
very nature and genius of paganism itself. But what of
that? It served an honest purpose : the purpose to which
all his patriot endeavours tend, the discredit of Revelation.
And on such an occasion a gratuitous assertion costs him
nothing.

Now it hath been deemed one characteristic mark of
favourable distinction in behalf of Revelation, that the
Jews affirmed the God of Israel to be the only true
God*, and asserted the worship of all other nations
to be addressed to mere fictions and chimeras. So far
was well. But then he should have taken care not to
contradict himself so very soon afterwards ; where speak
ing of the universal genius of paganism, he tells' us,
" Idolatry is attended with this evident advantage, that

A A 2 "by

356 REMARKS ON HUME'S

" by limiting the powers and functions of its deities, it
u naturally ad-mits the gods of other sects and nations to
" a share of divinity, and renders all the various deities,
" as well as rites, ceremonies or traditions, compatible
" with each o$bcr." p. .~>8.

But as this observation was not his OWH. being stolen
from a late writer ou the history of paganism, it is no
wonder he should so easily forget it.

- REMARK VIII. — But the paragraph (from which the
last quotation is borrowed) will a fiord us further matter
of speculation. It contains a detailed comparison between
the advantages and disadvantages of IDOLATRY and'
THEISM ; and thus the account rs stated:

" POLYTHEISM or idolatrous worship, being founded
"- entirely in vulgar traditions, is liable to this' great in-
" convenience, that any practice or opinion, however
'4 barbarous or corrupted, may be authorized by it; and
" full scope is left for knavery to impose on credulity, tilt
"morals and humanity be expelled from the religious
" systems of monkitith At the same time, idolatry is
" attended with tins evident ADVANTAGE, that,, by
{i limiting the powers and functions of its- deities, it natu-
" rally admits the gods of oilier sects and nations to a
" share of divinity, and renders all the various deities, as
" well as rites, ceremonies, or traditions, compatible with
" each other. Theis:n is opposite both in its advantages;
" a n d D i s A D v A \ T A GILS. " p p . 5 <5 , 59 .

The advantages and disadvantages ^polytheism are,
we see, such as arise from the nature and essence of
idolatry. Would you not expect, that the advantages and
disadvantages of theism should have the same relation to
their subject? Good logic seems to require it. But
what of that, if his cause requires other management?
lie scruples not therefore to tell us in the same page,
that the disadvantages here mentioned as arising from
theism, come not from the nature but the abuse of it —
^ They arise, says l\e,J'roui t he-vices and prejudices of
" mankind^

REMARK IX, — Still we are detained on the same
spot; which is so fruitful of curiosities, that there is no
stirring from. it. He is speaking of the absurdities oc.

misch-

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION, 357

mischiefs, I cannot well say whidh, that arise from Reve
lation. And one, or perhaps both of these lie intends to
infer from the following observation :

•"• While one sole object of devotion is acknowledged,
" the worship of other deities is regarded as absurd and
*l IMPIOUS. Nay, -this unity of objects seems natu-
" rally to require the UNITY OF FAITH AND CERE-
" MONIES, and furnishes designing men with a pretext
4t for representing their adversaries as profane, and
" the subjects of divine, as well as human vengeance."

)?ag*59-

The calumnious insinuation, in this passage, about the

origin of persecution (the abuse, and not ihe reasonable
consequence of a true principle) is below any body's
notice. What I fju/jte it for is a curious observation,
though made but on the bye— that the unity of object
seems naturally t-o require th^ UNITY OF FA mi AND

CEREMONIES.

Unity of object, says he, seems to require unity of
faith. 1 am apt to think it does. For if the object of
•belief be single, the belief can scarce be double: unless
by a drunkenness of the understanding, like that which
doubles the objects of sense. Hut then, that unity of
object as naturally requires unity vf ceremony, is not
&o clear. Unity of faith is necessary, because truth^
which is the general object of faith, i-s but vne. But who
ever affirmed, before our Author, that unity of ceremony
was necessary? Ceremony is only tan expression of
duty: and d-uty may be expressed a thousand different
ways. L rnity of c'rcil obedience under the same govern
ment is necessary.. But is unity of civil obeisance to
the same governor, equally necessary?

But in the brain of this paradoxical philosopher, faith.
•and ceremonies seem to have changed places. We see
here how he has exalted ceremonies. You shall see next
how he degrades jjith.

lie assures us, that u the Egyptian religion, though
" .so absurd, yet bore so great a resemblance to the
" Jewish^ that the ant lent writers, even of the grcat-
" est genius, were not able to observe any difference,
<c between them ;" in proof of which he quotes Tacitus
#nd Suetonius: /and then adds, " These iviae Heathen^
A A 3 k< observing

358 REMARKS ON HUME'S

" observing something in the GENERAL AIR and
" GENIUS and SPIRIT of the two religions to be the same,

" ESTEEMED THE DIFFERENCES OF THEJR DOGMAS

" TOO FRIVOLOUS TO DESERVE ANY ATTENTION."

pp. 76, 77.

These 'wise Heathens were shrewd observers. But
what then becomes of the wisdom of a much greater man,
our philosopher himself? who hath assured us, that the
general air and genius and spirit of the two religions
were so far from being the same, that they were totally
different. For speaking of Revelation and paganism, or
of theism and polytheism, he found this remarkable dif
ference in the air and genius and spirit of the two
religions, that " Idolatry has this evident ADVANTAGE
*' over theism, that by limiting the powers and functions
" of its deities, it naturally admits the gods of other
" sects and nations to a share of divinity, and renders all
" the various deities, as well as rites, ceremonies, or tra-
".ditions, compatible with each other." — Whereas in
theism, u While one sole object of devotion is acknow-
" ledged, the worship of other deities is regarded as
" absurd and impious." Nay he tells us in the same
place, " that theism is opposite -to polytheism, both in its
advantages and disadvantages.''' pp. 58, 59.

In short, in that section nothing is alike: in the section
before us every thing is the same. So various in wisdom
is antient and modern infidelity ! However, a difference
between the Jewish and Egyptian religion, he owns, there
was. But it was a difference only in DOGMAS TOO FRI
VOLOUS TO DESERVE ATTENTION ; being indeed nothing
more than this, whether mankind should fall down before
a dog, a cat, or a monkey, or whether he should worship
the God of the Universe. From this curious specimen
of our Author's ideas concerning FAITH and CEREMONIES,
we cannot but conclude, that he has set up for a writer
against religion, before he had learned kis Catechism.

REMARK X. — " MACHIAVEL observes, says our great
" philosopher and divine, that the doctrines of the Chris-
" tian religion [meaning the CATHOLIC, for he knew
" no other] which recommended only passive courage and
" suffering, had subdued the spirit of mankind, and fitted
" them for slavery and subjection. And this observa-

'•' tian

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 359

" tion would certainly be just, were there not many other
" circumstances in human society, which control the
" genius and character of a religion*" pp.66, 67.

Machicrcel, says he, meant the CathoUc rcljg'
That is, he meant the Roman Catholic, in contradistinc
tion to the Gospel. Maehiavel meant no such thing. If
he had, the super-subtil ft&fi&n had wrote like this
rambling North- Briton. For it is ru>t the Catholic reli
gion, so distinguished, bat the Gospel it 8 gave
libertine men the pretence of saying, that It subdued th^
spirit of mankind, and fitted them for slavery and
sub ject ion. But here a sudden qualm cornes over our
philosopher. He was ashamed of saying this of the
Gospel. And well he might. For, though he says, the
G bs creation is cert a in li/ justy there never was a ranker
calumny. The Gospel recommends no such thing as
passive courage and suffering, either with regard to
the domestic invaders of our civil rights, or to the foreign
enemies of our country : and there are but one or two
illiterate and fanatic sects, of very small extent, in the
whole Christian world, who have so understood and
abused the Gospel. The only passive courage and
suffering it recommends is to particulars, whose con
sciences civil society hath iniqmtously violated. Now, if
instead of this passive courage and suffering the Gospel
had recommended to its private followers to ih" to arms
and repel the force of the civil magistrate, when he alntscd
his authority, in suppressing truth and the rights of con
science, what tragical exclamations would these very men
have raised against the factious spirit of Christianity !
Indeed, to our Author's shame be it spoken, the very
contrary of all this is the truth. The efteets of
Gospel are most salutary IQ hitman society : £•
couraging inquiry, and by inspiring a spirit of liberty in
religious matters, it naturally inclines its followers to
carry the same dispositions iiitu civile

REMARK XL— But this honest man can allow himself,
on all occasions, to calumniate the religion of his coriiury :
sometimes openly and grossly; but oiterier, as *a the fol
lowing- instance, in tfie oblique way of insiniMio

" Were there a religion (and we may suspect 3'ftt/id-

^ metaimm of thi$~'incbnmte'fi'ce)" whith sohiotinios

AA4 **' painted

360 REMARKS ON HUME'S

' painted the Deity in the most sublime colours, as the
' creator of heaven and earth ; sometimes degraded him
" nearly to a level with human creatures in his powers
" and faculties ; while at the same time it ascribed to
" him suitable infirmities, passions and partialities of
<c the moral kind : that religion, after it was extinct,
" would also be cited as an instance of those contradic-
" lions, which arise from the gross, vulgar, natural con-
i ceptions of mankind, opposed to their continual pro-
if pensity towards flattery and exaggeration. Nothing
" indeed would prove more strongly the divine origin of
" any religion, than to find (arid happily this is the
" case with Christianity) that it is free from a cpntra-
" diction so incident to human nature." pp. 49, 50.

We see what the man would be at, through all his dis
guises. And, no doubt, he would be much mortified, i,f
we did not; though the discovery, we make, is only this.
That, of all the slanders against Revelation, this before us
is the tritest, the dirtiest, and most worn in the drudgery
of free-thinking. Not but it may pass with his friends.
And they have my free leave to make their best of it.
What I quote it for, is only to shew the rancour of heart
which possesses this unhappy man, and which could in
duce him to employ an insinuation against the Jewish and
Christian religions ; not only of no weight in itself, but
of none, I will venture to say, even in his own opinion.

REMARK XII. — " The learned, philosophical Varro
" (says our no less learned and philosophical naturalist)
*' discoursing of religion, pretends not to deliver any
" thing beyond probabilities and appearances : such was
" his good sense and moderation! But the passionate,
'* the zealous Augustin insults the noble Roman on his
" scepticism and reserve, and professes the most thorough
" belief and assurance. A Heathen poet, however,
" contemporary with the saint, ABSURDLY esteems the
<c religious system of the latter, so false, that even the
" credulity of children, he says, could not engage them
" to believe it." pp. 80, 81.

From the fact, as here delivered, we learn, that the
Pagans insulted the Christians, and the Christians the
Pagans, for the supposed absurdity of each other's system.
Agreed. And what then ? Were their several systems

equally

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 361

equally absurd? This is'what be would insinuate, or his
observation is impertinent. Yet does not Mr. David
Hume insult the religionists, as absurd ? They, him, as
ten times more absurd ? Will he say, that he and they
have equal reason ? But what, in the mean time, becomes
of rmturalism ? We must conclude then, that it is
possible, one party may be in the right, and the other in
the wrong. The consequence is, that his approbation of
Varro, and his censure of Augustin, is temerarious and
unjust For what hinders but that Augustin's thorough
belief and assurance might be full as reasonable when
he defended Christianity, as Varro's not venturing beyond
probabilities and appearances, when he apologized for
Paganism? Had our modern philosopher, who has a
much worse cause than Varro's to defend, but imitated
Varro's moderation, which he commends, instead of
Augustin's tit or ou gh assurance, which he condemns, his
reader perhaps would have thought better both of his
sense and honesty. — O, but for his honesty and impar
tial indifference between Christianity and Paganism, he
has given us such a convincing proof in this very instance,
that he ought ever hereafter to go scot-free. We have
observed, that he has praised Varro and condemned
Augustin : but to shew — Tros Rutulusve fuat — he tells us
honestly — that a Heathen poet, however, contempo
rary with the saint, ABSURDLY esteems the religious
System of the latter [i. e. Christianity] so false, that
even the credulity of children, he says, could not
engage them to believe it. Now here, where he has
been at the ex pence of so much fair dealing, he ought
to be indulged in rewarding himself for it, which he has
done in this modest insinuation, that Christianity was
so false and nauseous, that even children could not be
brought to swallow it.

He may talk what he pleases of the absurdity of poets..
But while one Philosopher lives, I defy all the poets of
antient or modern date to equal him either in absurdity
or fiction. The Poet, he here abuses, is CLAUDIUS
HUTILIUS NUMATIANUS, He tells you, how this poet
reviles Christianity : and quotes the poem, the book, and
the page. Would you suspect all this to be a flam, and
not one word of truth, from beginning to end ? Yet so

it

362 REMARKS ON HUME'S

it is. Rutilius is speaking of a JEW,- by name and title;
and the rites of Judaism, as they distinguish that religion
from all other, are the subject of his satire, The wiidt
passage is as follows :

— " Namque loci quemlus euram JUD^US agebat ;

" Humanis animal dissociale cibis.

Vexatos frutiecs, pulsatas imputat algns,

" Damnaque libatas grand ia clamat aqusx
" Redditnus obsccenoB eonvincia debita genti,

" Qua? gem talc caput proptidiosa met it :
" Radix stultitise, cuifrigida sabbata cordi;

" Sed cor frigidius religione sua est.
" Septima quaeque dies turpi damnata veterno.

" Tanquam lassati moll is imago Dei.
" Cetera mendacis deliramenta catasta?,

*' Nee pueros omnes credere posse reor*.'*

The Pagan writers indeed frequently confound the two
sects of Judaism and Christianity, with one another,
But here there is not the least room for that poor subter
fuge. Rutilius speaks of Judaism by name : and to shew
us that he understood his subject, he reviles it for those
very rites, which are peculiar to Judaism; namely, the
distinction between clean and unclean meats, circum
cision, and the sabbath. Yet, if you will believe this
honest man, Rutilius represents CHRISTIANITY as so false,
that even the credulity of children could nat engage
them to believe it. And why should you not believe
him? He is a philosopher, a follower of truth, and a
virtuous man : one (as he says of himself) whose errors
should be excused, ox ACCOUNT OF THE CANDOUR AND

SINCERITY" WHICH ACCOMPANIES THEM')".

REMARK XIII. — " If ever there was a nation or a
;< time (says our philosopher) in which the public reli-
" gion lost all authority over mankind., we might expect,
" that infidelity in Home, during the Ciceronian age,
" would openly have erected its throne, and that Cicero
". himself, in every speech and action^ would have '-been
" its most declared abettor. But, it appears, that, what-
*' ever sceptical liberties that great man might use, in his

Iter, 1, i. v, SS3, f Bedicat.' p. iii

wrtngs

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 363

" writings or in philosophical conversation : he yet avoid-
" ed, in the common conduct of Hie, the imputation of
" DKTSM and PRGFAXENESS. Even in his own family,
" and to his wife Terentia, whom he highly trusted, lie
" was willing to appear a dev7out religionist; and there
" remains a letter, addrest to her, in which he seriously
" desires her to offer a sacrifice to Apollo and Mscu-
" iapius, in gratitude for the recovery of his health.5'
pp. 81, 82.

Here he seems to commend Cicero (for his vanity,
perverseness, and love of paradox, make him always think
at large, and write at random) on a topic which exposes
his own wicked practice, namely, Cicero's care, in the
common conduct of life, to set the people an example
of reverence for the established religion. But whether
this was said in praise or dispraise of that noble Roman,
it matters not, since presently after he contradicts his
own account, and assures us, that the same Cicero waS
so far from avoiding, in the common conduct of life,
the imputation of DEISM and PROFAXEXESS, that he
made no scruple in a public court of judicature, of
teaching the doctrine of a future stale, as a MOST
RIDICULOUS FABLE, to which nobody would give any
attention, p. 91. And this without the least care of
reconciling Cicero, to himself; or his own contradictory
observations, to his reader.

REMARK XIV. — But he treats whole bodies of men
no better than particulars. " We may observe (says he)
" that, notwithstanding the dogmatical, imperious style
" of all superstition, the conviction of the religionists,
^ in all ages, is more aMectcd than real, and scarce ever
" approaches, in any degree, to that solid belief and
" persuasion, which governs us in the common affairs of
" lite. Men dare not avow, even to their own hearts,
" the doubts, which they entertain on such subjects:
" they make a merit of implicit faith; and disguise to
" themselves their REAL INFIDELITY, by the strongest
•" asseverations and most positive bigotry. But nature
" is too hard for all their endeavours, and suffers not the
" obscure, glimmering light, afforded in those shadowy
" regions, to equal the strong impressions, made by
" common sense and bv experience. The usual course

" of

364 REMARKS ON HUME'S

" of men's conduct belies their words, and shews, that
" the assent in these matters is some unaccountable
<l operation of the mind betwixt disbelief and con-
46 viction, but approaching much nearer the former than
" the latter." p. 83.

This is superlatively modest. When the religionist
says that an infidel writer (like this man) in order to
skreen himself from the resentment of the law, says one
thing and thinks another, there is no end of the cla
mours raised against uncharitable churchmen. But Mr.
David Hume may say all this and more of 'religionists,
and yet preserve his character of a philosopher and a
friend of truth. But infidelity owed him a shame, and
he presently unsays it all; and confesses that religionists
are so far from being tossed about in doubt and unbelief ±
that nothing is more constant than the course of even

o

the wisest and most experienced of them, invariably
steady to the point of faith. For after having said a
great deal to shew that Socrates and Xenophon did in
reality give credit to augurs and omens, he concludes
thus, " It is for the same reason, I MAINTAIN, that
" Newton, Locke, Clarke, &c. being Arians or SOCH
" nians, were VERY SINCERE, in the creed they pn>
" fessed: and I ALWAYS OPPOSE THIS ARGUMENT to
" -some libertines, who will needs have it, that it was
" impossible but that these great philosophers must have
" been HYPOCRITES." p. 91,

Our modest philosopher had employed the 8,3d page
of this wonderful Essay, to prove that, notwithstanding
tJie dogmatical imperious style of all superstition,
yet religionists are HYPOCRITES, their conviction in all
ages being more AFFECTED than REAL; and a great
deal more trash to the same purpose. Yet here in the
9 ist page he MAINTAINS against libertines, that these
religionists are VERY SIXCERE, and no hypocrites. Nay,
in spite, as it were, to his 830! page, he aiiinns that he
ALWAYS opposes this argument to libertines.

But are you to think, lie talks thus wantonly, for no
other end than to shew his contempt of the reader ? By
no means. For though this be, sometimes, motive suffi
cient for our paradoxical gentleman to contradict yet
we must needs think there was some important occasion

which

NATURAL MIST. OF RELIGION. 365

which induced him thus to give the lie to himself. He
had it in his choice (for what hindered him, when unre
strained by the considerations of truth or falsehood?) to-
represent the religionists as either KNAVES or FOOLS.
But this did not content his noble passion for mischief.
He would have them BOTH. Unluckily this could not.
be done without a contradiction. To make them
knaves, he was to shew they professed one thing, and
believed another : To make themjbols, they were to btj
represented &§ steadily and sincerely believing all things.
The contradiction, we see, was unavoidable : but how
he came so needlessly to saddle himself with the lie — I
ALWAYS, says he, oppose this argument to libertines —
I confess surpasses ray comprehension.

Well, having floundered so shamefully, he is for reco
vering himself; and therefore steps into the gap, between
these two extremes, a moderating tenet ; and so leaves •
all religionists, both antient and modern, in a kind of
MIDDLE STATE, between knaves mid fools. His con
ciliating tenet, is this — " In the mean time it is obvious,
" that the empire of all religious faith over the under-
" standing is wavering and uncertain ; subject to all va-
" rieties of humour, and dependent on the present inci-
" dents, which strike the imagination. The difference
" is only in the degrees. An Ancient will place a stroke
" of impiety and one of superstition alternately through
" a whole discourse: A Modern often thinks in the same
" way, though he may be more guarded in his expres-
" sions." pp. 86, 87.

I am so tired with his contradictions, that I shall let
this passage go unexamined upon that head, notwith
standing it looks so asquint botii to the right and left,
and agrees neither with the thorough hypocrisy, nor the
sincere belief, of the two passages it is brought to re
concile. But, as it stands alone, I may be allowed to
ask, Why is the modern Christian more guarded in his
expressions^ than the ancient Pagan? Does not human
nature always operate alike in the like circumstances? If
therefore, in this modern superstition, called Christia
nity, men are more consistent in the profession of their
V; than in that antient superstition, called Pagan-
un, does not this shew that the circumstances were not.

alik i -

366 REMARKS CN HUME'S

alike? And what other difference in circumstances could
there be, if not this, that Christianity having a rational
foundation, its professors stood steady and unmoved;
«md Paganism only fluctuating in the fancy and unsup
ported by the understanding, communicated the same in
constancy and variableness to its followers?

O, but says our philosopher, I will not allow that
steadiness to be more than pretended, A modern often
thinks in the same way, f i. e. inconstantly], though he
may be more guarded in his expressions. How pre
judiced ! what pretence has he to suppose it an incon
stancy, only guarded in the expression, when the very
uniformity of the profession excludes all data whereon to
ground his suspicion that the belief is only pretended ?

Pie must take it then for granted (as without doubt he
does) that Christianity has no more reasonable foundation
than Paganism. No need, will he say, of that at pre
sent. The.. fashion, the fashion, does all. An unstea
diness in religion is discreditable in these modern times:
hence the guarded expression.

. Well, admit it to be so. What, I pray you,- made
unsteadiness in religion now discreditable, which was cre
ditable in former times, but this, that Christianity has
now the support of, at least, plausible arguments, which
Paganism never had ?

REMARK XV. — In comparing the two religions, Pa
ganism and Christianity, our philosopher finds that the
former is to be preferred to the hitter, both in its REA
SONABLENESS and in its BENEVOLENT SPIRIT.

" Upon the whole, the greatest and most observable
" differences betwixt a traditional, mythological reli-
" gion, and a systematical, scholastic one, are two :
" The former is often more REASONABLE, as consist-
" ing only of a multitude of stories, which, however
" groundless, imply no express absurdity and demonstra-
" tive contradiction; and sits also so easy and light on
" men's minds, that though it may be as universally
" received, it makes no such deep impression on the
" affections and understanding." pp. 92, 93.

The reasonableness, we see, is resolved into this,
that you cannot reduce the professors of paganism to artr
express contradiction^ and that the profession sits

mighty

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 367

mighty light and easy on men's minds. As to the first
property of paganism, its incapacity of being reduced
to a contradiction, this it has in common with .NONSENSE,
which is likewise incapable of suffering the same dis
grace. And this will account too for its second pro
perty, the sitting so light and easy on the minds of
men. For nothing takes less hold of the mind than NON
SENSE, or so little disturbs its tranquillity, while we have
the discretion to take it for what it is. To this he will tell
you, you mistake his aim. if you think it was to credit
Paganism; the comparison was made only to discredit
Christianity, by insinuating that its DOGMAS are contra
dictory, and its SANCTIONS oppressive.

As to the superior BENEVOLENCE in the spirit of pa
ganism, this is made out as follows :

" Lucian observes, that a young man, who reads the
*• history of the gods in Homer or Hesiod, and finds
£i their factions, . wars, injustice, incest, adultery, and
" other immoralities so highly celebrated, is much sur-
*' prized afterwards, when he comes into the world, to
"observe, that punishments are by law inflicted on the
"• same actions, which he had been taught to ascribe to
" superior beings. The contradiction is still perhaps
" STRONGER, betwixt the representations given us by some
" latter religions and our natural ideas of generosity, le-
*•' nity, impartiality, and justice; ami in proportion to
" the multiplied terrors of these religions, the barbarous
" conceptions of the Divinity are multiplied upon us."
pp. 98, 99.

The Dri MA JORUM GENTIUM, as we learn from their
history, were, " a rabble of tyrants, pathics, and
" adulterers, whores, vagabonds, thieves, and mar-
" dercr-s*" Yet, gracious Heaven! a philosopher of
North Britain, in the reign of George the Second, has
dared to tell us, with very little disguise, that the barba
rous conceptions of the Divinity" multiplied upon us
by Christianity, are still more contradictory to our na
tural ideas of generosity, lenity, impartiality, and
justice.

But here his modesty seemed to labour a little ; and he-
k for casting part of the odium of this diabolical insinuation
* Div. Leg, Book- iv. §^4-.

from

368 REMARKS ON HUME'S

from himself upon another. cc But in order, says he, to
" shew more evidently, that it is possible for a religion
" to represent the Divinity in a still more immoral, una-
" miable light than the antient, we shall cite a long pas-
u sage from an author of TASTE and IMAGINATION,
" \vho was surely no enemy of Christianity." p. 99.
You will suspect him to be just on the point of playing
you a trick, when you hear him talk of his authority, as
an author of taste and imagination, when the subject
requires that the voucher for it should have a clear
judgment and strong understanding. After all, there
was no occasion for this slight of hand. The trick, I
speak of, is to be played, as you will find, not by this
man of taste, but by our philosopher himself. His
voucher, the Chevalier Ramsey, is perfectly innocent of
all our philosopher brings him to attest

The words just quoted plainly imply, that in the opi
nion of this man of taste, Revelation, or the Jewish and
Christian religion, as delivered in the Bible, represents
the Divinity in a still more immoral and unamiable
light than the antient. — It is possible, says he^for a
RELIGION — which, 1 think, implies the religion itself,
and not the superstitious followers, much less the pro
fessed enemies of it. Turn now to the long passage,
which this man of truth has quoted in his looth page,
and you will find that this immoral and un amiable
light in which the Divinity is represented, is not the
representation of the religion itself, but of its false
friends and open enemies. " What strange ideas (savs
" the Chevalier Ramsey) would an Indian or a Chinese
" philosopher have of our holy religion, if they judged
" by the schemes given of it by our modern FREE-

" THINKERS and PHARISAICAL DOCTORS OF ALL

" SECTS? According to the odious and too vulgar system
" of these INCREDULOUS SCOFFERS and CREDULOUS
" SCRIBF>LERS, the God of the Jews is a most cruel, un-
" just, partial, and fantastic being. — To accomplish the
" partial, barbarous decree of predestination and repro-
" bation, God abandoned all nations to darkness, ido-
" latry, and superstition,'" £c.

This turns out ridiculous enough. The Chevalier
Ramsey is brought to prove, that the Bible represents

the

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 369

the Divinity in a more immoral and unamiable light
than Paganism: and the Chevalier Ramsey turns the
tables on him, and proves that they are only such as our
philosopher himself, and his crew, who so represent the
Divinity.

Well", but say you, the Chevalier Ramsey is made by our
philosopher to consider the representation as the repre
sentation of Revelation, whoever made it. The man of
truf/is words are these — To shew more evidently that
it is possible for a religion to represent, $c. ice shall
cite a} long passage from an author, who was surely
no enemy to Christianity. Why were these last words
added but to insinuate that the representation, however
disadvantageous, was yet owned to be a true one ; unwil
lingly perhaps, as he was a friend of Ghristiani ty, but from
the mere force of evidence. Whereas turn but your
eyes upon the long passage, and >ou will 'find that the
representers, the freethinkers and pharisaical doc
tors, are heartily censured by the Chevalier for thus dis
figuring and dishonouring Revelation. His conclud
ing words are, " Thus the incredulous freethinkers,
""the Judaizing Christians, and the fatalistic doc-
" tors, have disfigured and dishonoured the sublime
" mysteries of our holy faith; thus they have con-
" founded the nature of good and evil ; transformed 'the
" most monstrous passions into divine attributes, and

" SURPASSED THE PAGANS IN BLASPHEMY, by aSCrib-

u ing to the eternal nature as perfections, what makes
" the hcrridest crimes among men/'

.The sum is this. The man of truth calls upon the
wan of taste to prove that the Jewish and Christian
religions, as they lie in the Bible, represent the Divi
nity in a more immoral and unamiable light than
Paganism. And the man of taste bears evidence, that
it is not the Bible, but the man of truth and his crew,
who give this representation of the Divinity : a represen
tation which SURPASSES indeed the very PAGANS, IN

BLASPHEMY.

REMARK XVI. — We now come to his account of the
origin of that religion, of which, meaning superstition,
he pretends to give a natural history.

VOL. XII, B B " The

370 REMARKS ON HUME'S

" The primary religion of mankind arises chiefly from
" an anxious fear of future events; and what ideas will
" naturally be entertained of invisible unknown powers,
" while men lie under dismal apprehensions of any kind,
" may easily be conceived. Every image of vengeance,
' severity, cruelty, and malice, must occur, and aug-
" ment the ghastliness and horror which oppresses the
" amazed religionist. A panic having once seized the
" mind, the active fancy still farther multiplies the ob-
f jects of terror; while that profound darkness, or, what
<e is worse, that glimmering light, with which we are en-
" vironed, represents the spectres of Divinity under the
" most dreadful appearances imaginable. And no idea
<k of perverse wickedness can be framed, which those
" terrified devotees do not readily, without scruple, ap-
" ply to their deity.

" This appears the natural state of religion, when sur-
" veyed in one light. But if we consider, on the other
" hand, that spirit of praise and eulogy, which necessa-
" rily has place in all religions, and which is the conse-
" quence of these very terrors, we must expect a quite
' contrary system of theology to prevail. Every virtue,
" every excellence must be ascribed to the Divinity,
"-and no exaggeration be esteemed sufficient to reach
" those perfections with which he is endowed. Whatever
" strains of panegyric can be invented are immediately
" embraced, without consulting any arguments or pha>
" nomena. And it is esteemed a sufficient confirmation
" of them, that they give us more magnificent ideas of
" the divine object of our worship and adoration.

" HERE therefore is a kind of contradiction betwixt
" the different principles of human nature, which enter
" into religion. Our natural terrors present the notion
" of a devilish and malicious deity : our propensity to
" praise leads us to acknowledge an excellent and divine.
" And the influence of these opposite principles are
41 various, according to the different situation of the hu-
" man understanding." pp. 94, 9.5.

Thus has this wretched man misrepresented and ca
lumniated those two simple principles, which under the
guidance of natural light led the people to a Deity, and
kept him always in sight, namely, FEAR, and LOVE. A

mar*

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 371

man less maliciously disposed to abuse and slander hu
man nature, would have fairly told us, that FEAR kept
the religionist from evil, as a thing offensive to the Deity;
and that LOVE inclined him to virtuous practice, as most
acceptable to the divine nature. No, says this accuser
of his kind, FEAR presented the religionist with the no
tion of a devilish and malicious deity : and LOVE ex
aggerated the perfections of the deity, without con-
salting any arguments or phenomena: i.e. arguments
or phasnoaiena, which might have convinced him that
they were exaggerations. Whereas the truth of the
case is merely this, whenever simple nature did not work
by fear and love, to avoid evil and to follow good, but
instead of that to invent a fantastic, or a diabolic deity,
the impediment was accidental, occasioned by the inter
vention of some unhappy circumstance' foreign to the
natural workings of the human mind.

REMARK XVII. — " It is remarked by Xenophon
" (says our philosopher) in praise of Socrates, that that
" philosopher assented not to the VULGAR opinion,
" which supposed the gods to know some things, and be
" ignorant of others : He maintained that they knew
" every thing which wras done, said, or even thought.
" But this -was a strain of philosophy much above the
" conception of his countrymen." p. 96.

This is pleasant. It is but in the foregoing page he
assures us, that not only the vulgar of Greece, but the
vulgar of all the world, knew that their gods were ig~
nor ant of nothing. His words are these. ]f we con
sider ilia t spirit of praise and eulogy, WHICH NECES
SARILY HAS PLACE I.V ALL RELIGIONS, We shall find

that every virtue, every excellence must be ascribed
to the Divinity, and NO EXAGGERATIONS BE ES
TEEMED SUFFICIENT TO REACH THOSE PERFECTIONS,

with which he is endowed. Now is not OMNISCIENCE
a PERFECTION ? And was not the spirit of exaggera
tion, which never thought it said enough, able to reach
the idea of knowing all things ? How happened it
then that this exaggerating mob of religionists wanted a
Socrates to tell them, that the gods not only knew some
things, but all things ? But the man has got his rea
ders, and he uses them as they deserve,

B B 2 REMARK

372 REMARKS ON HUME'S

:ARI: XVIII. — But now for a discovery indeed;
" 'A ' ler EXALT the idea of their Divinity ; it is

" O OTION OF HIS POWER AND KXCMVLEj .

cc ONLY, XGT OF HIS GOODNESS, \vhich is inrprov, .
" (-• ontrary, in proportion to the supposed extent

" qi Jence t- :.y, their terrors natuiv

" ar: . ' p. 97.

is hard. Comma -i sense seems to tell 'us so nuich
of our common n:\. -irit of lot'e, whic •

• and further the idea of its
on the GOODNESS
v is most conversant in the divine
r and Jcjioiclcflge. But this subl-
i her lias discovered, that both we and nature are
Lakcn; and that, as men further exalt the idea of
/, it is often tlteir notion of poicer and
knowledge, not of his goodness, that is improved.
And his kind reader might be disposed perhaps to take
his word, but that he sees it contradicts, in express
terms, what he had said but two or three pages before :
Where he as magisterially assures us, that a spirit of
praise and eulogy makes men ascribe every virtue,
every excellence to the Deity, and to EXAGGERATE
THEM ALL : Therefore, I should suppose, GOODNESS,
along with the \

REMARK XIX. — After all these feats, he will now
account how it happens tl lonists are so generally

disposed to prefer rites and positive institutions to mora
lity and natural duties. And the secret is revealed in
this manner :

aps, the following account may be received as
" a true solution of the d. . The duties, 'which a

" man performs as a friend or parent. merely ow-

" i: .ctor or children, nor can ho be want-

" ii)g to these duties, without break' -ugh all the

" tits of nature and mpraSity. 9 A strong.; .ion may

" . -.;it of order

<£ and moral beauty jc >e natural ties:

" And the whole man, if truly virtuous, is drawn to his
" duty, without any effort or endeavour. Even with
" regard to the virtues, which are more austere, and
" more founded on reflection, such as public spirit, filial

_" duty,

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGIO 373

" duty, temperance, or int: ^<rity ; the moral obligation,
" in our apprehension, removes all pretence to religions
" merit ; anil the virtuous conduct is esteemed no more
" than what we owe to society and to ourselves. In all
6 this, a superstitious ninn finds nothing, which he has
" properly performed for the sake of his Deity, or which
" can peculiarly recommend him to the divine favour
<£ and protection. He considers not, that the most ge-
" nuine method of serving the JJivinity is by promoting
" the happiness of his creatures. He still looks out for
' some more immediate service of the Supreme Ik
" in order to allay those terrors, with which he is
" haunted." pp. 106, 107.

It is to be lamented that but jest before he had proved
all this fine reasoning not worth a rush, wh^a-he con
fesses tluit there are popular religions, in zckich it is
expressly declared that nothing out morality can %ain
the divine favour, p. 104. For, if those who prefer
rites to moral duties, are yet taught by their religion that
nothing but morality can gain the d&vmfaowr, it is
plain, his solution can have no place, which is, that su
perstitious men give that unjust preference, because they
can find nothing in morality which can peculiarly re
commend them to tk& divine favour. Had he not
therefore clone be.ter, as in the' former instance of the
genius of Paganism, to have stolen his solution? He
has not boggled at greater ma i a philosopher,

who deserves no quarter from him, might have saved his
credit, and been pillaged with ad ,

' Next to the ki> , God, says this ex-

' cellent man, a clear ; heir "duty was

' wanting to mankind, i his part of knowledge, though
' cultivated with some cure by heathen

philosophers, yet got litila footi. ihe people.

Trie priests made it not i'.. hiees io teach men

virtue. If they were diiigeiK ir observations

1 and ceremonies;, pmictr.nl in t; :d solemni

ties, and the tricks of religion ; the holy, tribe assured
' them, the gods were pleased, looked no

farther. Few went to the schools of the philosophers
to be instructed in their duties, and to know \vhatwa3
'good and evil in their actions. The priests sold the

B B 3 " better

374 REMARKS ON HUME'S

" Idler penny -ft tor ths, and therefore had all their
" custom, Lustra thus and processions were much
" easier than a clam conscience, and a steady course
" of-cirtue; and cm expiatory sacrifice, that atoned
"for the n:ant of it, n:asmuch more convenient than
" a steady course of virtue*."

Tins is the solution of a philosopher indeed ; clear,
simple, manly, rational, and striking conviction in every
word; unlike the refined and fantastic nonsense of a
writer of paradoxes.

But then don't i ma trine that our author \vas not aware
of this solution. Ky, ho despised it because it was so
reasonable. For he ihh.'ks to obviate it by saying, " That
" it is not satisfactory to allege that the practice
" of morality is more difficult than that of supers ti-
l{ tiun; and is therefore rejected^ p, 105. But how
does he make out this point? Why, by giving us to un
derstand that t lie four Lt.nts of tin -.vites, and
the austerities of some Roman Catholics, appear
more disagreeable than .UEEKNESS AND BENEVO
LENCE. Let him say, as Air. Locke dees, honestly —
than a STEADY COURSE OF VIRTUJ:. And we shall
better judge whether these austerities be indeed more
difficult than such a morality.

REMARK XX. — Well, but he makes ample amends
for the slight here shewn " of STEADY VIRTUE." For, as
a supplement to his account of this mysterious phenome
non, <; We may add, says he, that even after the com-
" mission of crimes, there arise remorses and secret
" horrors, which give no rest to the mind, but make it
u have recourse to religious rites and ceremonies, as ex-
" piations of its offences. Whatever weakens or disor-
" ders the internal frame, promotes the interests of su-
'• perstition: A:\D XOTHIXG is MORE DESTRUCTIVE

" TO TIIE5I I'll AX A MA I i=Y VIRTUE, which

" either preserves us froi: > melancholy acci-

" dents, or teaches us to 1 . r p, 109, 1 10.

We may add, says he, Ti i say safely what

ever he pleases; who has a public to deal with so easily
bubbled into the opinion of his being a philosopher. — •
Which makes me the mere wcndcr at the trouble his
* Locke's Works, Vol. II, p. 575.

friends

NATURAL HIST. OF RELIGION. 375

friends gave him, of refining his natural history from
the grosser fieces of atheism,' before it was presented to
the world. But this public, it seems, was become a lit
tle squeamish, having been so lately overdosed by the
quackery of Bolingbroke.

NOTHING, says our philosopher, is MORE DESTRUC
TIVE TO THE INTEREST OF SUPERSTITION, THAN A

MANLY 'STEADY VIRTUE : which in plainer English is,
" None will be so free from superstition as the most
" hardened rogue." For the fact, from which he deduces
this proposition, is this, That after the commission of
crimes, there arise remorses and secret horrors, which
make men have recourse to expiatory rites. These
remorses, BY WEAKENING AND DISORDERING THE
INTERNAL FRAME, promote superstition. Now the
contrary state of this internal jrame can be no other
than such as enables us to bear the retrospect of our
rogueries without remorse and horror ; this he calls a
manly steady virtue. Do I wrong him? Let his
friends judge. Had he meant, by manly steady virtue,
what common moralists so call, he must have told us,
that this virtue produced in the offender, reparation of
injuries and amendment of life ; things, in reality, most
destructive to the interests of superstition. Whereas
the manly steady virtue of our philosopher does no
more, by his own confession, than either preserve us
from disastrous melancholy accidents [i. e. keep us
from hanging ourselves] or teaches us to bear them [i.e.
to recall to memory our past crimes without remorse].
And this, hardened roguery, and nothing but hardened
roguery, is capable of achieving. Or, will he, to save
himself from this atrocious charge, say, that by a manly
steady virtue he meant such a virtue as prevents the
commission of crimes? This had been to the purpose.
But let him then shew us how this meaning is to be
gathered from his expression. To say the least, if, in
excess of candour, one must suppose him to have meant
well, no well-meaning philosopher ever expressed him*
self so wretchedly.

REMARK XXI. — I have given a specimen of his
philosophic virtues, his reasoning, Ids consistency, his
knowledge, his truth, his candour, and his modesty, as

E B 4 they

376 REMARKS ON HUME'S NAT. HIST.

they promiscuously appear in the NATURAL HISTORY OF
HKLKJJON. I have hunted him from track to track. — •
And now what thick cover, do you suppose, has he
chosen to skreen himself from the public contempt? He
takes shelter in the dark umbrage of SCEPTICISM. —
These are his concluding words :

" The whole is a riddle, an senigma, an inexplicable
" mystery. Doubt, uncertainty, suspense of judgment,
" appear the only result of our most accurate scrutiny,
•" concerning this subject. But such is the frailty of
<e human reason, and such the irresistible contagion of
<"• opinion, that even this deliberate doubt could scarce
" be upheld ; did we not enlarge our view, and, opposing
" one species of superstition to another, set them a
>£ quarrelling; while we ourselves, during their fury and
" contention, happily make our escape, into THE CALM,

" THOUGH OBSCURE, REGIONS OF PHILOSOPHY."

Thus, we see, his last effort is to defend his dogmatical
nonsense with scepticism still more nonsensical. Nor
to this, neither, dares he trust himself; but presently
meditates an escape, as he calls it, by setting the reli
gionists a quarrelling : without which, he frankly owns,
that deliberate doubt could scarce be upheld. For the
sake of this beloved object, DELIBERATE DOUBT, there
is no mischief he is not ready to commit, even to the
unhinging the national religion, and unloosing all the
hold it has on the minds of the people. And all this for
the selfish and unnatural lust of escaping from right
reason and common sense, into the calm, though ob
scure, regions of philosophy. But here we have
earthed him; rolled up in the scoria of a dogmatist and
sceptic, run down together. He has been long taken for
a philosopher: and so perhaps he may be found — like
Aristotle's statue in the block —

" Then take him to develop, if you can,

" And hew the block oft] and get out the man."

REMARKS

NEAL'S

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS;*

ENTERED IN AN EDITION OF THAT WORK
IN THE LIBRARY AT DURHAM.

1765.

Extract from a Letter of the Bishop of

[Dr.Warburtoij] to me, Teb. 26, 1765. R. W*

« NI.AL'S History of the Puritans, in three volumes,

" noiv in the Library at Durham, which, in one of wij residences
ei 1 took home to my house, and, at breakfast-time, jllltd the
" margins quite through; which It/ritikto be a full confutation
" of all his false facts and partial representations?

* Dr. HUBD, nt that time Bishop of "Worcester ; antlior of the Introductory
Discourse prefixed to this Edition of Bishop Warburton's \Yorks.-5ee Vol. I. p. 7&*

REMARKS

ON

NEAL'S HISTORY.

VOL. I. Svo. Ed. 1732, London.

CHAP. III. p. 89. You hare the word, &c.— This
is to lie, under the cover of truth. Can any body
in his senses believe that when the only contention be
tween the two parties was, Who had the^'OTY/; that the
more powerful would yield it up to their adversaries? — •
Without all doubt, some protestant member, in the heat
of dispute, said, JVe have the word; upon which the
prolocutor insultingly answers — But we have the sword —
without thinking any one would be so foolish as to join
the two propositions into one, and then give it to the
prolocutor.

Ch. iv. p. 178. Yet Fuller, £c. who had the liberty
of perusing, — But did he peruse them ?

P. 186. fFox) had no preferment, £c. — This is a
mistake ; for he was installed in the third prebend of
Durham, October 14, 1572, Pilltington being then
Bishop, who had much the same sentiments with Fox, but
held it not long, Bellamy succeeding to the same stall,
Oftobcr 31, 1573.

P. 191. Because his [Sneers] head was not square.
— I think his head was out of square.

P. 192. The grand question, " Whether they
" should desert their ministry, or comply." — What
then ? must they needs be more in the right in this trifling
question, than they were in that important one of religious
liberty, in which the author thinks, and truly, that they
were all wrong ? Dr. Horn, &c.

and this was very consistent.

P.1Q4.

38o REMARKS ON NEAL'S

P. 194. Till [the habits] are sent to hell, &c.— If
they came from hell, they certainly were not ii nt :

but the devil has better merchandize for souls, than this
gear, pharisaical purity and spiritual pride.

Our first reformers ascribed no holiness, &c. — Who
ascribes any holiness or virtue to them now, I pi
Decency, indeed, they do, and that is enough to ju-.
their use.

P. 231. " Each par ill blamed the other"— The
Church of England doubtless was right irf 'ng con

formity to their terms of communion. Then it was, they
became offenders, when they denied a toleration to th

) would not accept their terms of communion : ior
their refusal proceeding from an opinion (however weak
•and- foolish) that the terms were sinful, they had a right
to worship. God in thrir pw$ way ; and the crime of

"-m, if they were guilty of it, they were to for

to God only, \vlio was the only judge how iar the
cerity of their erroneous conscience rendered tLi.i
cxcusal

P. 240. Natural right, £c..-~ With what face could
the author speak of the natural right every man has
to juc]o;e for himself, as one of the heads of controversy
between the Puritans and Conformists, when his whole
History shews that this was a truth unknown to either
party /and that, as the Conformists persecuted because
they thought themselves in the right, so the Puritans in
sisted on°their Christian liberty, because they were in
the right : net because all sects (whether in the right or
wrong) have a title to it ; in winch ibundaUun only true
Christian liberty rises.

Ch.v. p. 243. "Prove that. "—They might easily have
proved that every particular church has this authority,
because it is of the essence of a reli- ;cicty, as such ;

and when the state unites with, ar .ishes, a:

ticular church, thcntliG civil mai as head ot the

:di, has this power.

P. 294. " And it may hare settled them." — Can

;e be a stronger proof than this, o> Christ's not in
stituting a discipline for the churcK did ibr the
synagogue, That he left the matter to particular churches
to institute, such as each thought most convenient?

Ch, vi.

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 381

Ch.'vi. p. 36,5. The Bishop of Lo.. Yis-

an imlkir charge, which runs 'throng- • Yory. 1

exacting conformity of the ministry of any church, by
governors of that church, is no persecution :• indeed,
doing more than simply froui -d

rn union is so ; much more the not per:- them to

;iip God in their own way, as a sep<' v.:t.—

Whether the terms of communion or conformity •
not too narrow, is another question.

P. 360. Mr. Stttbhs right hand, £c. — This was in
finitely more cruel than all the ears under Charle

;" whether we consider the punishment, the crime,
or the man.

P. 369. Jan. 10. The Commons voted, £c. — If this

only a fast for themselves, there was -nothing in it

to law and but, if they enjoined it to be

.:out doors, it was a violation of all order and

good government, as well as law.

P. 372. Satirical pamphlets, £c. — Without doubt,
the punishment was much too severe for the offence :
bat a fair and impartial historian would have spoken
in much severer terms of such satirical pamphlets as
in Mar-Prelate, £c. £c. for these are the pamphlets
he alludes to.

P. , 'en tliat act on principles, &c. — It is just

the same with men who act upon passion and prejudice,
for the poet says truly,

" Obstinacy's ne'er so stiff
" As wheir'tis in a wrong belief/'
P. 380. Influence on the next generation, &c. — It
as is seen from the overthrow of the constitution both
in church and state by the generation so influenced.

P. 381. In defiance of the lazes, &c. — Were the Jesuits
more faulty in acting in defiance of the laws, than the
Puritans? I think not — They had both the same plea,
conscience ; and both the same provocation, persecution.

P. 386. The Bishops will be a distinct, £c. — The
Puritans were even with them, and to the Jus divinuni
of Episcopacy, opposed the Jus diyinum of Presbytery,
which was'the making each other Antichristian.

P. 389. It seemed a little hard, Sic. — That is, It is
hard that the dispensers of poison should be hanged

for

382 REMARKS ON NEAL'S

for going on obstinately in mischief, because he who
compounded the poison was on his repentance par
doned. — But thus does party and prejudice speak on
nil occasions.

Ch/vii. p. 405. " Professed reverence for tlie esta
blished church"-— When the Puritans write against the
Bishops, [p. 403] they call the established church an
hierarchy, that never obtained till the approach of Anti
christ. Yet here to the council profess to reverence
it, and see no necessity of separating from the unity
of it.

P. 459. " But now if the whole" £c. — The very
nature of the supremacy (placed in the sovereign in a
state, where the legislative power is shared between the
sovereign and the states) hath in time brought the supre
macy to that equitable condition the author speaks of.

P. 464. " He erected a hind of Judicatory?'-
The Archbishop [p. 396] publishes articles, which, be
cause they were not under the Great Seal, though by the
Queen's direction, the author pronounces against law- — •
because against the Puritans. Here the Bishop of
Lich field, without the Queen's direction, erects a kind
of Judicatory, which he reckons to be agreeable to law-
bee ause in favour of the Puritans.

P.466. '" The writer of Hooker's Life"kc. — It was
disingenuous to quote the quaint trash of a fantastical
life-writer, as he knew the words, thus separate, would
be understood in a sense the life-writer never meant,
namely, that Mr. Hooker was only a tool or creature of
the Archbishop : whereas that immortal man spoke no
language but that of truth, and dictated by conscience.

P. 470. " Mr. Hooker concludes" &c.— This answer
of his is one of the greatest master-pieces for purity and
elegance of language, eloquence, and dignity of discourse,
clearness and strength of reasoning, that ever was written.

P. 481. This Bill offered, to the House was such an
insolent mutinous action in the Puritan ministers, that
one would wonder a writer of this author's good sense
coiild mention them without censure, much more that
he should do it with commendation. It was no wonder
the Queen should except from a general pardon men so
ready to oppose authority. A bill for toleration for

themselves

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 383

themselves had been just and reasonable, and perhaps,
in the temper of the House of Commons in their favour,
they had succeeded — but a bill to establish themselves,
and impose their discipline upon others, was an insuffer
able insolence. But it proceeded from that wretched
principle, which the author would conceal in his friends,
but is always ready, on every occasion, to exclaim against
in his adversaries ; namely, " that error is not to be
" tolerated, without the cjiult of partaking in other men's
" sins."

P. 482. " To prove his doctrine of Popery," £c. —
This is the general fault of controversial Divines, and
has been so in every age since the apostolic times. la
combating one extreme, they run into another; and,
while they are opposing their enemies on the right hand,
give advantages to those on their left. This is often the
mishap even of the more cautious, who are combating
honestly for what they think the truth. Others, who are
fighting only for their party, the ir reputation, and advance
ment, act like mere engineers, who never inquire whose
ground it is they stand upon, while they are erecting a
battery against their enemies.

P. 483. " For relief^— What relief? Toleration?
No : an establishment. To this the author would say,
all they first wanted, was to be let alone and not perse
cuted. Yes, but it was to bring in their discipline by
degrees; 1st, to quarrel with surplices and square caps,
then to cavil at the Common Prayer, and lastly to condemn
Episcopacy. All this time, indeed, they were for con
tinuing in the church. But v, hat was this, but aiming
to establish their discipline, on the ruins of the Episcopal
church ? Had they, on their first persecution, left the
church, we had seen all they desired was toleration : but
persevering to continue in it to reform it, it is plain they
wanted an establishment.

P. 488. u It has been easy at. this time" &c.—
Was it not distressing the government and the hie
rarchy, to revile them in the bitterest language, on the
eve of an invasion from Spain, when the only security
that government had was the people's love, and conse
quently attachment to church and state? Did not these
pamphlets abate, the people's love and reverence for both,

in

384 REMARKS ON NEAL'S

in which they were told that the government was unjust
and tyrannical ; and the hierarchy, Antichristian ?

P. 491. -" They assumed no authority" &c. — What
is meant by this? They assumed no authority. Did not
they expel from their society all who would not ohsc
their decrees? Yes. But they exercised no coercive
power. How ccTnld they ? This belongs only to the civil
state, and is derived from thence to the established church
only. Why, this is not what they would be at. They
were for being the established church. This is the
reason why they were for wiping off the calumny of
schism, by communicating, as they pretended, with the
church, which this author makes a matter of great merit
in them.

P. 495. " It will then follow" — This is a very piti
ful sophism, as may be seen by only changing names.
If priests by God's ordinance are superior governors
over the deacons, it will follow that her Majesty is not
supreme governor over the deacons.

P. 496. " But this is a quite different thing to say"
&c.- — -It is not a different thing, as Hooker has shewn,
who has proved that a difference in the legislature makes
no difference in the essence of things.

P. 498. u Most of the Clergy" &c.— This is most
true. The great Hooker was not only against, but laid
down principles that have entirely subverted it, and all
pretences to a divine unalterable right in any form of
church government whatsoever. Yet, strange to say. his
book was so unavoidable a confutation of Puritanical
principles, which by the way claimed their Presbytery as
of divine right, that the churchmen took the advantage
of the successes of their champion, and now began to
claim a divine right for Episcopacy on the strength of
that very book, that subverted all pretences to every
species of divine right whatsoever.

Ch. viii. p. 508. "Mr. Udall? &c.— This is unworthy
a candid historian, or an honest man. Udall, we see,
p. 519, did not suffer death (which in common English
signifies dying by the hand of the executioner), but died
in^ prison ; he says, indeed, ^heart-broken : but there is
as much difference between an historian's pronouncing
a man heart-broken, and actual breaking on a wheel, as
3 between

HISTORY OF TIIE..PLJRITAXS. .385

between a priest's pronouncing an excommunicate dam
ned, and actual damnation.

P. 574. Remarks. — In one part of these remarks, lie
appears not to have understood Hooker; in another, IK;
draws consequences which do not follow from Hooker's
principles; and in the third he argues against church
power from the abuse of it.

P- 575- u Must I then? &c. — He either mistakes

or misrepresents Hooker. What that great author affirms

. is this, that whoever is born in a church where the true

doctrine of Christ is taught and professed, is obliged to

submit to those laws of the society, without which no

society can subsist. Just as he who is born in a civil

society, founded on the principles of natural liberty, is

; bound to submit to those laws of the society, without

which civil society cannot subsist.

P- 575- " Bui all those of Rome" — How so ? Does
it follow^ that, because I have a right to the use of a
power, I have a right to the abuse of it? The church of
Home, that of England, and every other Christian
church of one denomination, may as a society make laws
of order and discipline. The church of Rome abuses this
right — therefore the church of England shall not use it.

P. .579. " Blew up their liberties." — Blow up a

. fool's head. This proceeded from the natural perversity

of the populace, which will always oppose authority,

( when they can with safety, even though they deprive

themselves of all their other satisfactions.

P. 581."" Article*.''-— \ would fain know how these
men could speak worse of the evil being himself. How
deplorable are the infirmities of human nature! See here
the feverish state of a puritanical conscience. Those men
could set church and state in a flame lor square caps,
surplices, and the cross in baptism ; while they swal-
. lowed, and even contended for, these horrible decrees ;
the frightful and disordered dreams of a crude, sour-tem
pered, persecuting bigot, who counterworks his Creator,
and makes .God alter man's image, and chooses the worst
model he can find, himself.

Ibid. The Puritans, by Dr. Reynolds in the name of
the brethren at the Hampton Court conference, desired

.VOL. XII. C c that

3S6 REMARKS ON XEAUS

that these godly articles -might be inserted among the
thirty-nine. See p. 15, 2d. vol.

P. 583. This went upon the true puritan principle,
that whatever was popish was false.

P. ,584. Their ease was indeed more sad than their
historian intended 'to suggest. It was the common infir
mity of churchmen to persecute, when in power ; hut to
persecute as the Puritans here did, while under oppres
sion, shews the extreme depravity of the heart.

P. 584. " Lambeth articles." — There is something
very spiteful in this, not to he content to abuse Lambeth
for pasting doctrines contrary to theirs, but to abuse
them for espousing their favourite decrees. But Lambeth,
like Rome, can do nothing right.

P. 587. " With hypocrites" — Notwithstanding this
protestation, it appears as clear as the day, from Hars-
nct's detection, that this affair was a vile imposture, and
as fairly charged on the Puritan Divines, as a like impos
ture, carrying on at the same time, and detected by the
same able writer, in the popish quarter, was fairly
chargeable on the mass-priests.

P. 589. " Of those that Atfre."— This \reak speech
an able historian should not have quoted, for the sake
of his party. They were indicted as acting against law,
not against the Gospel; and the judge, if a good lawr*
yer, was qualified to try them, let his knowledge in
divinity be what it would — the rest the legislature was to
answer.

Ibid. " The foundations of discipline " — i..e. Were,
not disposed to overturn the constitution of the church.
We see by this what was aimed at, an establishment, not
a. toleration. There was too much pretence therefore ta
treat them as seditious subjects.

P. 594. " Erastian principles? — It is true that
Krastus's famous book De Excommumcatwnc was pup-
chased by Whitgift of Erastus's witlow in Germany, and
put by. him to the press in London, under fictitious names-
-of the place and printer. This Seldcn discovered, and
has published the discovery in his book De Syjiedriis.
Had the author known this,, it had been a fine ornament
to hid history,.

VOL. IL

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 387

VOL. II. 8vo. London, 1733.

Prcf. p. x. " To which it is exposed.9'- -The author
has here, and in his preface to the former volume, con
founded together two things very distinct and different, a
test for the security of the establishment, and the sacra
mental test, enjoined for that purpose. I think a test
absolutely necessary for the security of the established
religion, where there are diversities of sects in the state ;
and I think the sacramental test the very worst that could
have been chosen for that purpose, because it is both
evaded and profaned.

P. xi. " And penalties for not doing it." — Most
certainly.

Ch. i. p. 3. " In the years 1581 andisw." — A fail-
historian would here have acquainted us with the villain
ous and tyrannical usage of the kirk of Scotland to
their King, of which the Scotch historians of that time
are full ; and by which we should have seen the high
provocation they had given him, and how natural it u a^
for him to return their usage, when he had once emanci
pated himself from them : The King himself hints at
this, p. 19.

P. 19. "Pray let that alone." — Sancho Pancha never
made a better speech, nor more to the purpose, during
his government.

P. 78. "Which he prophesyed" — How would the
historian have us understand this? As a true prophecy
to be fulfilled, or a false prophet confuted?

Ch. ii. p. loi. " No certain proof of it." — This is
abominable. There was no proof at all. He was sus
pected indeed to have been poisoned, nobody knows by
whom, because no prince dies untimely without that sus
picion.

P. 107. fi< Received in their room." — It could never
be a bad exchange which set aside the nine horrid arti
cles of Lambeth.

Ibid. " A national reformation^ — -In other words,
when the Puritans had long laboured in vain for an esta
blishment, they would now be thankful for a toleration.

c c 2 They

3S8 REMARKS OX NEAUS

They had no just pretence to the first, and it was

to deny them the latter : But he who asks too much i>

often J^uiangQr of losing his due.

P. 115. " Unexceptionable manner." — But our his-
. torian forgets to tell us what Mr. Hales said upon the
sum of things; i. e. when he had heard the great Epis-
copius make his celebrated defence, he, from that mo
ment, hade John Calvin good night,

P. 1 1 8. " Nothing here than Scripture, reason,
and fathers *--^K\i was said ironically.

P. 1 20. " Turned their tasli-fiiqsters out of the
kingdom" — Soon after they used their interest to this
purpose, and I believe they began to use it as soon as.
ever they got it.

P. 121. " Raised up by this treatise."- —Where was-
the storm, except in this fanciful author's stand ish, when
Sclden taught the clergy to raise their parsonage-barns on
the sure foundation of law ; which before they had
foolishly placed upon crutches, the feeble prop of an
imaginary divine right?

P. 12.5. " Two religions established by foa'.'--This
is a mistake, and the fancy of two established religions in
one state, an absurdity. The case was this : part of
the Bohemians before the Reformation held the necessity
of communicating under both kinds ; these were the
Hussites. This privilege was granted them ; and these
were called the $ub utritquc, and the rest sub unu. But
these were not two religions, but one onty — administer
ing a single rite differently. After the Reformation, the
Hussites became Protestants, i. e. of a ditu rent religion
from the sub unu part: but then they were no longer an.
\ established church, lint a tolerated one only.

P. 12(>. " Rejoiced at this pro-cid'ence." — Just such
a pr(rcic-ence as the long Parliament depriving Charles
•the Virt-t of his crown, and setting up a republic.

P. 14,4. kl Lost both his crou'n and life. ." — This is
an utter calumny : a coalition of the two churches was
never in the King's thoughts; happy for hFui, if he never
had worse; what he aimed at, was arbitrary power.
Had he given his Parliaments sari-faction, in that point,
he mujhi luivc reduced the Puritans to a lo»ver coiuiition^

thaa

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 389

than ever they were in, in the time of Elizabeth. The
cry of popenj was the address of those who were only
struggling for crc.il liberty, as helieving (in which they
were mistaken) that the real danger of civil liberty was
not of force enough to draw in the people to their side,
without possessing them with fears from the imaginary
danger of popery.

P.. 147. " llarsnek" — Was a man of the greatest
learning and parts of his time.

P. 148. " To the -mother * than to the Son -\\ofGod"
-* This is a vile perversion of facts. Gondamcr's
words \\Qw-inure devotion to the wot her, than the yon ;
meaning Buckingham's mother, who carried on the traflic.
of preferments for her son, and consequently had a much
greater levee. So this, we see, was a mere profane
joke of Gondamer's, speaking of court corruption under
the terms of > religion. Now here comes an historian,
who by adding the words, of God, makes Gondamer
give testimony to the growth of popery. But could he
r>cally believe that one Episcopal clergyman of this time
ever prayed to the mother of God ?

t Of God, should be erased. The mother meant,
was Buckingham's, who, beii)g a violent Papist, and yet
having the disposal of preferments, gave Gondamcr
hopes of the re-establishment of popery by advancing its
h'icnds.

Ibid. "Upon 'their principles.*' — If he means the
principles which Laud followed in the administration of
church affairs, it is nothing to the purpose. If he means
the principles Laud advanced in that conference, he
knows not what he says ; they were unanswerable.

P. 149. " Seidcn says of tlic clergy of these times."'
Here is another of the historian's arts. ' Seidcn speaks
of the Puritan clergy : Yet by the terms here used, the
reader would naturally imagine that Seidcn spoke of the
Episcopal clergy.

Ch. iii. p., 156. " Attorney General Noy" — Could
a fair historian have any more omitted telliivj; his reader
that NOY was a great lawyer, than, if he spoke of Bacon,
to a»' knowledge his great talents for philosophy?

cc3 p. i;s.

390 REMARKS ON NEAL'S

P. i 78. " More likely, &c. reputation depended*' —
Too absurd to be confuted. The circumstance of send
ing home the Qutcn's domestics might have shewn him
the felly of his conjecture. Buckingham u.ake^ a \va.r to
disgust the Parliament, and sends home the Queen's do
mestics to please them.

P. 1 85. " Accessary to all the abominations of po*
pen/" — From so silly a sophism, so gravely delivered, I
conclude, Usher was not that great man, he has been re
presented.

Ch. iv. p. 209. " And reverend aspect" — Here the
historian \vas much at a loss for his Confessor's good qua
lities, while he is forced to take up with his grave, and
reverend aspect.

P. 232. " Should be cancelled" — Had Laud done
nothing worse, than to prosecute this factious and illegal
scheme, he might have passed both for a good subject
and a. prudent prelate.

Ch. v. p. 25 7. " Filled with so much learning" &c. —
It is written also with much wit and humour, which
Lord Clarendon calls levity. It might be so in a sub
ject of importance : but on so trifling a question, wit and
humour was in its place. But is it not something odd,
that this historian should represent it as a trifling ques
tion, after he had made surplices, hoods, and square
caps, a matter of such importance, that the whole king
dom was to be set in a flame, rather than to comply
with them?

P. 272. "That God would forgive Queen Elizabeth
her sins." — This is an unfair re presentation — They were
the sins of persecuting the holy discipline which he prayed
for the remission of; and that reflecting on her admini
stration was the thing which gave offence.

P. 289. " / can do no more." — Had he been content
to do nothing, the church had stood. Suppose him to
have been an honest man and sincere, which I think
must be granted, it will follow that he knew nothing of
the constitution either of civil or religious society ; and
was as poor a churchman as he was a politician.

P. 290. " Awakening preachers — wild notes"- — -

j. e. A mad fanatic, who will always draw the people-

(i after

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 391

pjfter him. We he.ve at present of these bull -finches
without number, and their wild notes are as awakening
as ever.

P. 295. " Bp* Williams retired to his diocese.1' —
This prosecution must needs give every one a very bad
idea of Laud's heart and temper. You might resolve his
liigh acts of power in the state into reverence and grati
tude to his master ; his tyranny in the church to his zeal
for, and love of, what lie called religion : but the outra
geous prosecution of these two men can be resolved into
nothing, but envy and revenge : and actions like these
they were which occasioned all that bitter, but indeed
just exclamation against the bishops, in the speeches of
Lord Falkland and Lord Digby.

P. 303. " Franciscus dt Clara'' — His real name
was Christopher Davenport. He published an exposi
tion of the Thirty-nine Articles in the most favourable
sense. But it pleased not either party. It wr?s put into
the Index Expurgatorius by the Spanish inquisition, and
would have been condemned at Rome, had not the lying
and Archbishop Laud pressed Penzani, the pope's agent
in London, to stop the prosecution. Popish Ch. Hist,
vol. iii. ]L 104, in V. ])iv.

Ch. vi. p. 387. " Bp. Ilatjklds tomb, which had
ban erected 25 years." — 250 it should have been.

Ch. viii. p. 429. " Jlforv a jingle of words than
strength oj argument.'' — If Griinstone's argument be
a jingle of words, as the historian confesses, how should
Selden's, which was delivered to expose the other, be a
jingle of words too? Every one sees it is a thorough con
futation. And whenever a jingle of words is designedly
set in a light to be exposed, by making an argument out
of them of the same form, they are no longer a jingle of
words, but a conveyance of sense. The truth is, as to
Grimstone's argument, the fallacy lies here, in supposing
every thing of the Jus Divinum was questionable in a
bishop, and out of question in an archbishop ; whereas
they both had in them the Jus Divinum of Presbyters ;
and therefore, as superintendants of other presbyters,
they might suspend them. The fallacy of Selden's reply
lies in tiiis., that it supposes that Convocations and Par-
ID c 4 liaments

302 REMARKS ON NEAL'S

laments meddle with any thing in religion, which \sjitre
ila'iriO ; when tltey do not ; but those things that turjure
hum a no, as is every thing relating to government and
discipline.

P. 43 J. •' Archives of Oxford" — If this were worth
notice, the historian should have added that Bradshaw's
broad- brimmed hat is to he met with in the same place.

P. 434= ''Goodman himself it v -at c.recntcd.^-
Whose fault was this? lie was remitted to the pica-,
sure of the House, and they would not order his execu
tion. The truth of the matter was this: each party was
desirous of throwing the odium of Goodman's execution
on the other ; so between both the man escaped. In the
mean time how prejudiced is ll.e representation of our
historian !

P. 436. " A right f'> do byvift'tit of a clause"- — To
talk of the Legislature's having a ri^ht to do a thine* bv

O J

virtue of a clause in an Act of Parliament, is nonsense.
The Legislature which makes the Act, is supposed never
to die. So it is just the same as to say the judge has a
jight to interpret the law, by virtue of his own declara
tion affirming he had that right. So that if an attainder
was a thing agreeable to natural justice, the Legislature
needed no clause to enable them to pass- it ; if it was not
agreeable to natural justice, no clause or declaration of
their own could make it so.

Ch.ix. p. 438. "This [Lord Stra fiords] letter was
but a feint"'— It is affirmed by Carte (in his Life of the
Earl of Ormond, and with some shew of reason) that this
was a forged letter, to induce the King's consent.

Ch, x. p. 504. " Rut though the King? Sic. — These
insinuations against the King are certainly very unjust
and groundless.

Pi 505. " That the, English. Court admitted? &c. —
If he meant by the English Court, the King, he is scan
dalously uncharitable.

P. 510. Ck That the King was willingly ignorant^
£c. — This is a vlllanous accusation, destitute of all
proof and likelihood. The poor King had follies and
climes of state enough to answer for, without loading
him witii so injurious and groundless a calumny. As to

the

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 393

the favour the Kino; afterwards shewed the Irish rebels,
and his .n<:-y into treaty with them, it was in his distresses
ta recruit his army, to make head against the overbearing1
power of the Parliament ; in which he acted as became
one in his station, though it was foolish and unmanly iu
him to deny it.

P. 512. "At the mot Ion of Lord Dighj/." — Why
are we told this hut to mislead us ? A year ago, before
the King had made full satisfaction for his misgo\ eminent, ,
swell a remonstrance was seasonable : now he had made
full satisfaction, it was factious and seditious. And that
their very purpose was not to secure what they had got
for the service of the old constitution, but to pave the
way for a ttcic, was plain from their printing and pub-
1 whin 2: their remonstrance, before the KingcoulJ prepare
his answer.

Ibid. "When the project of an agreement^ <xc.
• — i. e\ .When this unhappy accident afforded the dema
gogues in Parliament an opportunity of widening the
breach between the King and Parliament. Otherwise,
this was a natural means for their uniting more firmly

than ever.

P. 527. " Not that the House can he charged, £c.
//'/' the rerij nevt day." — The notorious falsehood of
tiiis assertion cannot better be exposed, or shewn in a
more contemptible light, than by the reason given of the
assertion ; for the very next day, &c. They have been
charged by all mankind with encouraging the tumults ;
but nobody ever charged them with ^voicing publicly,
that they did encourage them : and this is all that their
precious historian clears them oi^ by his for the very
HL\vt da 11.

P. 532. u Null without the Peers." — Foolish— on
the hypothesis (though a false one) there are three estates,
Lords Spiritual, and Temporal, and Commons. Two
ot them, sit in one house, and compose one body: the
third sit in one house, and compose another body.. The
Lords Spiritual are excluded ; they remonstrate, and say,
a force being put upon a part of that body, the acts of
the other part are void. This is good reasoning on the
hypothesis. But the hypothesis is . false. The Bishops

ao

394 REMARKS ON NEAL'S

do not make a distinct estate, but are part of the general
Baronage which composes the House of Lords. How
ever, our historian reasons on the hypothesis, and say?,
that the (Jommons might as well pretend that the Lords
proceeding M^ere void without them, as that the Bishops
should pretend so. What, do the Commons, like the
Bishops, make up one body with the Lords, on which the
Bishop's argument is founded? Do they not sit and act
as a distinct body ? Risum teneatis ?

P. 532. " Occasion the dissolution of the Par-
liament^—lifat Kin 2 hoped so, he was fit for Bedlam
teo : but every body, but these poor-spirited historians,
see, that all the King could possibly hope from it, was,
the getting the Bishops restored to their right.

P. 534. " Because by the same rule" — That is to
say, by the same rule that I pluck out a rotten tooth, I
may pull out the whole set. This is only said to expose
the historian's foolish reasoning. As to the action itself,
it was the most unparalleled folly that ever was com
mitted.

P. 535. " Mr. Echard with great probability" &c.
— A charge against the Papists has always great pro
bability with this historian. It is a known imcontrovert-
ed fact, that the advice was Digby's ; nay the historian
confirms it by observing, that on its ill success Uigby
immediately withdrew out of the kingdom. Yet in the
same breath he tells us, it is more probable it was a pro
ject of the Queen and her cabal of Papists ; and this on
the authority of that poor scribbler, Echard. They
neither of them knew that at this time the Queen was
almost frightened out of her wits, for fear of an impeach
ment ; was actually projecting her escape; and was. in
capable of any vigorous council, intent only on her
own safety : to erred which, she gave up StraiTord
to the slaughter, by that poor and ungrateful postscript
she persuaded the King to add to his letter to tho
Lords.

P. 536. " To leave Whitehall? — When a man runs
away from his own house, it is a plain proof, I think, that
he could stay no longer in it with safety. It is confessed
the. people were on the 3ide of the Parliament. In

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 393

such a situation, we see how commodious it was for that
body to pretend tears; it was the attaching the people
more closely to them. But for the King, in this situa
tion, to preVv:..; tears, was acting the part of an idiot ; for
as all love of Majesty VVLI,< gone, and the people restrain
ed only by the apprehensions of its power, for the King
to shew by pretended fear that he had no power, was re
moving the only barrier to their rage and insult. We
must needs conclude therefore that the Kings were real,
and not pretended.

P. 540. u The hand of God was against them" &c.
The Puritans have a strange kind of logic. A teat in
the civil Legislature lor the Bishops the Puritans deemed
an abuse. They are now deprived of their seat, which,
in the sense of the Puritans, was bringing them nearer
to the primitive standard. Yet this blessing (for such an
one it was, if it brought them nearer to the practice of
the purest times) must be reckoned, by these very
Puritans, the hand of God in judgment for their sins. A
puritan gossip met a churchwoman, her neighbour, one
morning in the streets of Exeter. Heark yon, neigh
bour, says the first, do you hear the news? Merchant
such an one is a bankrupt, and merchant such an one,
the churchman, loses ten thousand pounds by the break :
fhere is God's judgment for you ; the merchant was ever
a great scoffer at the conventicle. — And is this all you
have heard ? said the other. — Yes. — Why then you have
heard but half the news. Mercer such an one of your
religion has lost iiftccn hundred pounds by this break. —
I must confess, replied the first, a severe trial.

Ch. xi. p. 544- " Resolutions of the Councils at
IViiukor, I i arce icith the reader"— The judicious
reader will lavish at our historian for referring this ques
tion to his determination. The Parliament was not now
acting on the principles of Grotius' book De Jure, but
on those of MachiacvelV, called the Prince, where every
thing is just, that is profitable.

P. 550. " The ic hole controversy." — It is very evi
dent, these suppositions (demonstrable as they are) this
impartial historian is by no means willing we s!
make, by his illusory expression in the first of i

where

REMARKS ON NEAL'S

where he says, the King left his Parliament, and
would act no louder in concert u'ith them. If by
leaving he means deserting, as he would have tlic reader
understand it, it is false: and if, by not acting in con
cert, he means thut he refused doing his part in the
Legislature, that is false likewise. If by leaving, he
only meant removing from them to a distance, the King
bad reason; he was drove awuy by the • tumults. If hy
not acting in concert, he meant net doing every thing
the Parliament commanded, the King had reason here,
too; for they would ha-ye stripped him of his whole pre
rogative.

P. ,}.-; i , " In the opinion -of the Lords and Cpmwdns"
Here is some mistake. The -historian is here appealing
to his reader's opinion (not the opinion of the Lords and
Commons), and telling us what conclusions the reader
should make from his own opinions. So, if the reader
thinks the constitution was entire, that thehrasicere
•sjuffici&tyt io secure us against popery ana slavery, he
was to conclude the King's arguments strong. But if the
two Houses declared that the King had deserted them,
£c. what then? ^V'Jiy then we arc to conclude that the

two Houses are in the ridit : not the more for their dc-

^
claratiou, I promise you. But such a reasoner is this

Historian, lie does not know how tQ state the opposite
parts of Jris proposition.

P. 567. " His Majesty had his ambiguities'* — Here
was no ambiguity. The King understood by foreign
aids what certainly the Parliament meant, foreign
troops. Are arms and ammunition, bought with the
crown jewels of England, what in English we signify by
the words, foreign aids ? But now there is neither end
nor measure to this historian's prejudices and false
representations,

P. 569. " And feeling apprehension^ — The truth is,
these poor people felt, as Sancho Pancha. saic, by hear
say. The pulpit incendiaries had usurped all the people's
faculties, and assumed the right of judging for them.

P. ,583. " Power of I he keys to tlievisckes^ — And
wisely too. They had seen this power impiously abused
Jry the prelates ; and they had no inclination to see a

prelate

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 397

prelate in every parish, more imperious, more cruel, am!
more ignorant, than the very worst of Laud's bishops. —
However, .throughout the whole usurpation, the Presby
terian was tiic established religion to all intents and
pufj>oses.

P. 586. " Deserted the House of Commons" &c. —
When a mart is listed into a party, you may always know
him by his badge. Speaking of those who left the
House of Commons and retired to the King, NEAL
always uses the party-word deserted, which implies the
betraying their trust. So indeed the Parliament called
it; but an historian's using it is taking for granted the
thing in dispute; namely, whether leaving the House at.
this time, awl going to the King, was betraying their trust
or preserving their allegiance. I consider the author
here, (as you see, by the defence of himself in his Revtcir,
he would be considered, nay complains of his adversary
for not considering them, that is to say) as aifc'Aftrforeafe,
not as a Puritan. See p> 5. of the Review.

P. 588. " Jllassacre of Ireland" — What sense is
there in this comparison,, if you do not suppose the
author to insinuate, that in the civil' war in England, as
in the massacre of Ireland, all the Protestant blood was
shed on one side, and unjustly and cruelly? and what
hone-stii is there in the comparison, if you do?

P. 596. "Parliament had the better men ? "- -To
all these testimonies I think it sufficient to oppose that
of Oliver Cromwell, in his speech to his Parliament,
who speaks of it to them by way of appeal as a thing
they very well knew, That the Presbyterian armies of the
j\\iliaLwcnt., before the self-denving ordinance, were chictlv
made \ip, ot -decay ed serving-meii. broLen tapsters, and
men without any sense of religion : and that it was his
business to bispire thai spirit of religion into his troops
on the reform, to oppose to the principles of honour in
tire King's troops, made up of gentlemen. And Oliver
was a man who understood what he said, and knew what
he did: it is true, fanaticism was called religion by
Oliver, just as cant is called religion by our historian.

P. ;'Q7. " Great scarcity of preachers of a learn
ed edx(:aticn"-~'r]i\K* sure is no compliment to the

good

REMARKS ON NEAL'S

good old cause, to have the learned {gainst it. But, to
make amends, for want of acquired knowledge, they
abounded in inspired.

P. 600. " Comparing the learning of the Puritan
Divines," £c.— Our historian had owned just before,
p. 597, that there were but few among them of a learned
education. He had better have stuck to his word. — •
Selden, Lightfoot, Cudworth, Pococke, Whichcot, &c.
can with no propriety be called of the party : the most
that can be said of them is, that they submitted to the

fOWei\

P. 615. " In which the kingdom is inflamed?* — I
believe all parties are agreed that if a mistaken King, of
good -faith, had made that full reparation for his mis
conduct, which Charles the First did, before the having
recourse to arms, the Parliament ought to have acquiesced
in peace with what they had goc for the people. But
Charles was a man of ill faith ; and thence another
question arises, Whether he was to be trusted ? But here
\ve must begin to distinguish. It was one thing, whether
those particulars, who had personalty offended the King,
in the manner by which they extorted this amends from
him ; and another, whether the public, on all the prin
ciples of civil government, ought not to have sate down
satisfied. — I think particulars could not safely take his
word ; and that the public could not honestly refuse it.
You will say, then, the leaders in Parliament were justi
fied in their mistrust. Here, agaijs^ we must distinguish.
Had they been private men only, we should not dispute
it. "But they bore another character; they were repre
sentatives of the public, and should therefore have acted
in that capacity.

VOL. III. Svo. London, 1736.

" REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL FACTS IX THE
FIRST VOLUME."

P. 5. " Dress up Mr. Neal in the habit of a
Puritan?* — An atrocious injury, without doubt! Mr.
Ncal is only an historian. It puts one in mind of the

trumpeter,

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS.

trumpeter, who, being seized by his enemy in the rout of
his own party, cried out for m^rcy, as being only r.
trumpeter. The more ?*o^u^ you, cried the honest
veteran, who set ctfaqr people together by the ears, and
will not fight ycarseii !

Appendix, p. 83. l' JV'iili writers .of these times"
The Author of the Vindication having been a Dis
senter.

Pref. to 3d Vol. p. vii. " This obscure clergyman?
This is a very just reproof.

Ch. ii. p. 62. u More decency and respect.^ — -With
out doubt he would.- — lie had infinitely more qstecin for
the learning of the Episcopal clergy, though perhaps 110
more love for their persons.

P. 80. " Religious part of the nation.'1 — i. e. the
Puritan, for puritanism and religion are convertible terms
with this historian.

Ibid. " Though It appears."' — Why for this very rea
son it was not to be justified, because it was a force upon
the conscience of these Episcopal Divines of greatest
figure.

P. 93. " From Geneva.'* — Deodati, the Prince of Di
vinity there, returned a very temperate answer, no way
inconsistent with the re -establishment of Episcopacv.
W. Hayes, MS. in Library, N° 28, M. G. Glass.

P. 102. " The interest of Dr. Cheyiiel? — CheyneFs
viilanous book, wherein he gives an account of his treat
ment of Chillingworth, is yet extant; and it confirms
Lord Clarendon's accusation. Locke read it, and speaks
of it in the harshest terms, but not. more severely than it
deserves.

Ch. iii. p. 107. " Ea.se and mutinous motion." — •
There is no circumstance that bears harder on the King's
conduct than this. It is not to be conceived that these
men, who hazarded all to support the King's right, could
advise him to any thing base in a mutinous manner. I
doubt therefore that this is too strong a proof that nothing
less than arbitrary government would heartily satisfyhim.

Ch. iv. p. 104. '• Not inconsistent with, public
pea at" — What ! is not tiie declaiming against human

literature,.

•4oo REMARKS OX XEAUS

literature, crying; down magistracy, talking of a fifth-
monarchy, inconsistent with the public peace ?

P. 166. " My. wishes are? — It is apparent, from
many circumstances in the young man's conduct, that he
had his eye upon the crown, matters being gone too far
for the King and Parliament ever to agree.

Ok v. p. 247. " More a man of business than let-
ter$. — Just the contrary. He did not understand bu
siness at all, as- fully appears from the historian's account
of his civil administration, and was a great master of reli
gious controversy.

1\ 2.53. " Admirable argument to induce the
1 Prince to put the word into the King's hands" —
Tliis is a foolish declamation. The subject here was
Ireland, not the militia. The King is charged with
' breaking his promise to leave the Irish war to the Par
liament. His answer is to this effect, and I think very
pertinent — " It is true, I made this promise, but it was

- ** when the Parliament was my friend, not my enemy.
' " They mi^ht be then intrusted with my quarrel ; but it

" would be madness to think they now can. To prevent
" therefore their making a treaty with the Irish, and in
" their distresses bringing over the troops against me, I

• " have treated with them, and have brought over the
. u troops against them.'9 This was speaking like a wise

»ml able Prince.

P. 258. " Episcopacy jure tfVr//v0.''--Thc Marquis
of Hertford seems to have read Hooker to more advan
tage, than the King his master ; who fancied that great
man contended for the jus divinum of Episcopacy in his
E. P. in which he lias been followed by many Divines
since.

P. 263. " Jfcere not tltesc reasonable requests'* —
The historian mistakes Lord Clarendon, who is not here
telling us, uliat the Parliament were able, but only
what they were willing to do. Their hands were tied,
not by the Scotch Covenant, but by the Scotch assist
ance, \\hich they could not keep without adhering to the
Covenant.

P. -2 ().••;. " His ]\fa)C"ttfs senile attachment to her
impir't^u* dictates." — Never was the observation, of

the

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 401

the King's unhappy attachment, made in a worse place.
His honour required him not to. give up his friends;
and his religion, viz the true principles of Christianity,
to take off the: penal laws 'from peaceable Papists;
and common humanity called upon him to favour,
those who had served him at the hazard of their lives
and fortunes.

P. 266. " The Earl by his Majesty's commission
yielded" &c. — The Earl exceeded his commission, which
is known to every body.

Ch. vi. p. 270. iirlaking themselves to an easier and
quieter life'' — I don't know what any one could say
worse of these pretended ministers of Christ, the Puri
tans, than what is here • ! They set out in the
office of trumpeters of rebellion, being chaplains to the
regiments of Essex's army. As sdon as they had gained
their end, which was dispossessing the Episcopal bene-
ficed clergy, they nested themselves in ihdr warm par
sonages, and left the Parliament soldiers a prey to those
they themselves most hated/ the independent fanatic
lay- preachers.

Ch. vii. p. 360. " An unjust and malicious asper
sion!* — The historian, before he said this, should have
seen whether he could answer these two questions in the
affirmative.— -Would the English have paid the arrears
without the person of the King ? — Would the Scots have
given up the King, if they could have had the arrears
without ?

Ch. viii. p. 408.. "Not only abandoned and re
nounced these senile doctrines, but hcrce" £c. — To
know whether the Presbyterians have indeed abandoned
their persecuting principles, we should see them under
an establishment. It is no wonder that a tolerated sect
should espouse those principles of Christian liberty,
which support their toleration. Now the Scotish Pres
byterians are established, and we rind they still adhere
to the old principle of intolerance.

Ch. x. p. 493. " Selden. "'~-V } at has Seldcn here to
do with Ministers, Puritans, and Persecutors ?

P. 495. " Keep a weekly fast" — These were glo
rious Saints, that fought and preached for the King's
destruction ; and then fasted and prayed for his preser-

VOL, XII, I) D vation,

4012 REMARKS ON NEAL'S

vation, when they had brought him to the foot of the
scaffold.

P. 497. " And not being willing to apply" &c. — •
They had applied to the Protector, and received such an
answer as they deserved. A deputation of the London
Divines went to him to complain, that the Cavalier Epis
copal Clergy got their congregations from them, and de
bauched the faithful from their ministers. Have they so ?
said the Protector : I will take an order with them ; and
made a motion, as if he was going to say something to
the captain of the guards ; when turning short, But hold,
said he, after what manner do the Cavaliers debauch
your people? By preaching, replied the ministers. Then
preach BACK again, said this able states uxin ; aad left
them to their own reflections.

P. 5 2 7. " And virtuous morals." — How could he say
that these officers, who, he owns, were high enthusiasts,
were yet men of sober and virtuous morals, when they all
acted (as almost all enthusiasts do) on this maxim, That
the end sanctifies the means , and that the elect (of which
number they reckoned themselves chief) are above ordi*
nances?

P. 530. " Published a p?*afestation"-~-And yet thes^
very secluded members had voted the bishops guilty
of high treason for protesting in the same manner, when
under the like force.

Ibid. " Oliver Cromwell was in doubt" — And is
this historian indeed so simple as to think Oliver Crom
well was really in doubt ?

P- 545- " sis strong and convincing as any thing
of this nature possibly can be." — There is full as
strong evidence on the other side ; all of which this honest
historian conceals — evidence of the Kings bed-chamber,
who swear they saw the progress of it — saw the King
write it — heard him speak of it as his — and transcribed
parts of it for him. It appears by the wretched false
taste of composition in Gauden's- other writings, and by
his unchaste language, that he was utterly incapable of
writing this book. Again, consider what credit was to
be given to Gauden's assertion of his authorship. He
confesses himself a falsary and an impostor, who imposed
a -spurious book on the public in the Kind's name.
12 Was

HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. 403

Was not a man so shameless, capable of telling this lie
for a bishoprick, which he was soliciting on the pretended:
merit of this work ? As to ] Father, it is agreed that
Gauden told him that he [Gauden] was the. author of
the book, and that he saw it in Gauden's hand-writing ;
wiiich is well accounted for by a servant, a tithe-gatherer
of Gaud'en, who swears that Gauden borrowed the book
of one of the King's friends (to whom it was communi
cated by the King for their judgments) to transcribe ;
that he [Gauden] sat up all night to transcribe it, and
that he [the tithe-gatherer] sat up with him to snuff his
candles, and mend his fire. It is agreed that Charles f I.
and the Duke of York believed, on the word of Gauden,
when he solicited his reward, that he [Gauden] wrote it.
But then this forwarded their prejudices: and what they
believed, Lord Clarendon would believe too. On the
whole, it is so far from being certain, as this historian
pretends, that the book is spurious, that it is the most
uncertain matter I ever took the pains to examine. There
is strong evidence on both sides ; but I think the strongest
and most unexceptionable is on that which gives it to
the King.

P. 549. " This unrighteous charge"- -The Presby
terians subdued and imprisoned the King. This is agreed
on all hands. Then the Independents, getting uppermost,
took the King from them, and were determined to mur
der him. They would have had the Presbyterians join
with them in this murder, of which they [the Indepen
dents] were to have all the profit, and the Presbyterians
only a share in the odium. Besides, they mortally hated
the Independents for opposing their two darling points,
the divine right of Presbytery < and the use vf force
in religious matters. Was it likely that in these cir
cumstances the Presbyterians should join with the Inde
pendents in the odious project? And had they not a
wonderful deal of merit in opposing it ? But had these
Independents been ready to set up their idol of Presby
tery, and on their own terms, on condition of joining
with them in the murder; I ask then, whether it is
likely they would have stood out? Those who have read
only this history of them, will have little reason to
think they would. Those who were capable of punishing

r> D 2 Arians,

4o4 REMARKS ON NEAL'S HISTORY.

Arians with death, were capable of doing any wickedness
for the cause of God.

P. 551. " Who had the greatest hand in it of
all" — There is doubtless a great deal of truth in all this.
No party of men, as a religions body, further thart
as they were united by one common enthusiasm, were
the actors in this tragedy, (see what Burnet say&
below). But who prepared the entertainment, and was.
at the expence of the exhibition, is another question.

A

I/E T T E R*

JROM

AN AUTHOR,

TO

A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT;

CONCERNING

LITERARY PROPERTY.
1747.

sin,

IT seemeth to me an odd circumstance, that, amidst
the justest and safest establishment of PROPERTY,
which the best form of government is capable of pro
curing, there should yet be one species of it belonging to
an order of men, who have been generally esteemed the
greatest ornament, and. certainly, are not the least sup
port of civil policy, to which little or no regard hath been
hitherto paid. I mean, the right of property in
AUTHORS to their works. And surely if there be degrees
of right, that of Authors seemeth to have the advantage
over most others ; their property being, in the truest
sense, their own, as acquired by a long and painful exer
cise of that very faculty which denominated! us MLN ;

•And

' * The following information, communicated by a friend, maybe
.acceptable to the reader. R. W.

" The question, discussed in this letter, came aft-rwards before
the Court of King's Bench in the case of Miliui versus Taylor :
And, on Feb. 7, 176*9, that Couri gave jud^;uvJni in labour of *he
perpetual and exclusive rh';ht of ui Author, by the common law,
to print and pr.blish his own works. The .question was revived in,
the case of Donaldson versus Beckei ; which came before the Court
of Chancery. The Lord Chancellor decreed in conformity to the
•opinion of the Court of King's Bench. But, upoa an appeal from
this decree, it was reversed by the House of Lords on the 22d of
J-ebruary, 1774."

DD3

406 LETTER CONCERNING

And if there be degrees of security for its enjoyment,
here again they appear to have the fairest claim, as
fortune hath been long in confederacy with ignorance,
to stop up their way to every other kind of acquisition.

History indeed informeth us, that there was a time,
when men in public stations thought it the duty of their
office to encourage letters ; and when those rewards, which
the wisdom of the Legislature had established for the
learned in that profession deemed more immediately use
ful to society, were carefully distributed amongst the
most deserving. While this system lasted, Authors
had the less occasion to be anxious about literary pro
perty ; which was, perhaps, the reason why the settlement
of it was so long neglected, that, at length it became a
question, whether they had any property at all.

But this tbnd regard to learning being only an indul
gence to its infant age; a favour, which, -in these happy
times of its maturity, many reasons of state have induced
the public wisdom to withdraw ; letters are now left, like
virtue, to be their own reward. We may surely then
be permitted to expect that so slender a pittance should,
at least, be well secured from rapine and depredation.

Yet so great is the vulgar prejudice, against an
author's property, that when, at any time, attempts have
been made to support it, against the most flagrant acts
of robbery and injustice, it was never thought prudent
to demand the public protection as a right, but to sup
plicate it as a grace : and this, too, in order to engage a
favourable attention, conveyed under every insinuating
circumstance of address; such as promoting the paper
manufactory at home; or augmenting the revenue, by
that which is imported from abroad.

The grounds of this prejudice are various. It hath
been partly owing to the complaints of unsuccessful
writers against booksellers, for not bringing their works to
a second edition ; and partly, to the complaints of little
readers agiiinst successful ones, for a contrary cause ;
when, to the great damage of the purchasers of thcjirst
edition, they have fraudulently improved a second. For
the proprietor professing to sell only his paper and print,
and pot the doctrine conveyed by it ; the purchaser, who
has nothing else for his money, never reckons (an,d often

with

LITERARY PROPERTY. 40?

with good reason) his improvement for any thing. So
that when a second edition lesseneth the price of the
Jirst, he very naturally thinks himself tricked of his
money.

Another ground of prejudice, is the untair advantage
made of the author's property, by booksellers : which, "if
true, would be just as good a reason for refusing him the
public protection, as it would be to turn all those estates
upon the common, which one of your Peter Walters has
out at nurse. For why should it be expected of an
author, and of no one else, to become sage before he be
entrusted with his own ? Let him but share in the com
mon security, and he will soon learn the value of property,
and how to use it like his neighbours. As it is, we need
not wonder, he should be disposed to part with that, for
little, which he is unable to preserve but at great hazard
and ex pence.

A third ground of prejudice is the odious sound of the
word MONOPOLY. But this is taking the thing in ques
tion for granted, viz. that an author hath no right of
property : for a monopoly is an exclusive privilege by
grant of doing that, which all men have a claim to do ;
not an exclusive right by nature of enjoying what no
one else has a claim to. So that to make this a mono
poly, is making a proprietor and a monopolist the same.

A fourth ground of prejudice is the favourite sound of
xifiERTY, in these times commonly used for LICENTIOUS
NESS; and apparently so on this occasion. For liberty
signifies the power of doing what one will with one's own ;
which is the right we here contend for : and licentious-

O

wess the doing what we will with another man's; which
is the wrong we seek to redress. So that, as sure as
licentiousness destroys liberty, so certain is it, that the
protection of the right in question adds strength and
vigour to it.

But it is not my design to defend the use men make
of property; but to vindicate the right they have in it.
For were it not for these prejudices, could we easily
•think that a printseller or engraver should be able to
obtain that for his baubles, which LEARNING hath so
Ipng sued for in vain ? I shall therefore go to the bot-
of them \ and, as they all support themselves on the
D p 4 false

408 LETTER CONCERNING

false logic here detected, the taking the thing in. ques
tion J'ur granted, I shall shew, that an author has an
undoubted right of property in his Avorks.

Things susceptible of PROPERTY must have these two
essential conditions; that they he useful to -mankind;
and that they be capable of having their possession
ascertained. Without the -first, society will not be
obliged to take the right under its protection; and, with
out the second, it will never venture upon the trouble.

Of these, some are movable, as goods ; some immova-
lie, as lands : and they become . property either by first
occupancy, or by imp) oreinent.

Of movable, some, are things natural', others,, things
artificial. Property in the first is gained by occupancy ;
in the latter, by .improvement.

Movable property, aris|ng from improvement, is of
two sorts; the product of the hand, and of the mind', as
an utensil made; a book con-posed. For that the pro
duct of the Viirid\& as well capable of becoming property,
as that of the hai<d, is evident from hence, that it hath
in it those two essential conditions, which, by the allow
ance of all writers of laws, make things susceptible of
property; namely, common utility, and a capacity of
having its possession ascertained.

Both these sort of. things^ therefore, being capable of
property, we are next to consider, as- they are so different
in their natures, whether there be not as great a differ
ence in the ext$y$i9ft oj their rights.

In the iiistcase, then, it is agreed, that property in the
.product of the hand, as in an utensil, is confined to tire
individual thing made; which, if the proprietor thinks not
fit to hide, other.- may- make the like in imitation of it ;
and thereby acquire the same property iu their manual
U'ork, v»hich he hath done in his. . .

But, in the other east' or property in the product of
the mind, as in a book coin-posed, it is n&t confined to
the ork::iiv.i MS. hut extends to the doctrine contained
in it; v\hic:< is, indeed, the true and peculiar property in
a book. rlhc nccv'ssa. \ consequence of which is, that
the owm-r hath an ext lusive right, of transcribing or.
} rinling it for gain or profit.

This

LITERARY PROPERTY. 409

This difference, in these two sorts of property, arises
from an equal difference in the things : as will appear bj
considering the different nature of the works ; and the
different views of the operators.

With regard to the nature of the work : an utensil^
and a .book only considered as a composition of paper,
and ink drawn out in artificial characters, are both works
of the handy and, as such, the property is confined to
the individual thing. But a book considered merely in
this light, is considered inadequately and unjustly; the
complete idea of a book being such a composition as is
here spoken of, together with a doctrine contained.
But under this idea it assumes another nature, and be
comes a work of the mind. We have proved a work of
the mind to be susceptible of property, like that of the
hand. Now if the property in a book be coniincd to
the individual volume, here is a work of the mind exe
cuted without any property annexed: the property in
the individual volume, arising from its being merely the
work of the hand. A doctrine absurd in speculation,
as it is making manual and mental operation one and the
same, which are two distinct and different things : and
unjust in practice, as it depriveth the owner of a right
annexed by nature to his labour. Again, in the utensil
made, the principal expense is in the materials employed;
which, whoever furnisheth, reasonably acquires a property
in the thing made, though made by imitation. On the
contrary, in a book composed, the principal ex-pence is
in the form given : which as the original maker only can
supply, it is but reasonable, how greatly soever the copies
ot his work may be multiplied, that they be multiplied to
his own exclusive profit.

Let us next consider it, with regard to the different
views of the operators. He who makes an utensil, in
imitation of another he sees made, must necessarily work
with the same ideas the original operator had, and so fitly
acquires a property in the. work of his own hands. But
the most learned book in the world may be copied by one
\viio hath no ideas at all. What pretence, then, hath
sucti a one to property, in a work of the mind, who
bath employed, in copying it, only the labour of the

410 LETTER CONCERNING

hand* and which tends but to make his theft the more
impudent, a* 'he steals what he cloth not understand? — •
Again, in an utensil made, the trainer of it hath plainly
no regard to any ones benefit but his own : and he
must finish it before it can be fitted for his use. His
end, then, being obtained in that individual piece of
%vork, it is but reasonable his property sho< Id there ter-
lainate. In a mental work, the thing turns the other
way. Here the contriver may himself enjoy all the fruits
of his discoveries without drawing them out ^cholastically
ia form. When IK? doth this, it is but -candid to suppose
that it is done for the benefit of others. Can anything,
therefore, be more jiist than that he should be owned and
protected in a property, which he hath not merely ac
quired to himself, but which .is generously objective to
the benefit of others ?

In a word, to insist once again upon -what hath been
ibid. — I fan author have only a property in his individual
mamiKci ipt, he hath, truly speaking, no property, in his7
book, at ail ; that is, as his book is a work of the -mind ;
which, rn this case, still lies in common. The conse^
Alienee is. (as appears from the explanation of property
given above^ -that no p-reper-ty ar-ixeth from a thing
susceptible of property : nay, which is still more ab-
s uit), jrzm a thing actually become property ; as being
attended with ail those essential conditions from whence
property ariseth. To deny an .author, therefore, or his
assigns, aa exclusive privilege to print and vend his own
work, seemeth to be a violation of one of -the most fun
damental rights of civil society.

But here let it be observed, that, in our division of
artificial movables, into the tico sorts, of manual and
mental, we purposely omitted a third, of a -complicated
nature, which holds of both the other in .common ; as
reserving it tor this place, to -support and illustrate whafc
hath been said above of the two more simple kinds : and
that is, of mechanic engines. Now these partaking so
essentially of the nature of manual works, the maker
hath no perjcct right of property ki the invention —
l;or, Like a common utensil, -it must be finished -before h;
ca;-. .b, of use to himself,; like that, its materials are its
' p, il vx pence; and like that, a successful imitator

must

LITERARY PROPERTY. 411

must work with the ideas of the first inventor : which are
all reasons why the property should terminate in the in
dividual machine. Yet because the operation of the
mind is so intimately concerned in the construction of
these works, their powers being effected and regulated
by the right application of geometric science, all states
have concurred in giving the inventors of them a licence
of monopoly, for a term of years, as on a claim of right.
Now the reason of this, we say, can be explained only
on the principles here advanced, that the constructor of a.
piece of mechanism hath his property confined to the
individual thing made; and the composer of a scholastic
work hath his, extended to the ideal discourse itself
And a mathematical machine holding of the nature of
both, but more essentially of the former, there was no
way of adjusting and satisfying an imperfect right but
by sucli a grant as is here mentioned.

But it is no unfrequent practice for the claimants of a
perfect right to apply to the magistrate, or Legislature,
for the better security of an acquired property, in the
same manner that claimants of an imperfect right do,
to acquire property : sometimes, to the one for a licence ;
and sometimes, to the other for an Act of Parliament.
Yet from thence to conclude, that the claimants of a
perfect right have, by such application, waved or given
up their claim ; or that the magistrate or Legislature have,
by their licences or acts of exclusive privilege for a cer
tain time, either abridged or superseded that claim, appears,
to me, the highest absurdity; as it will, I am persuaded,
to others, on reflecting upon the plain and obvious reasons
why the petitioners seek this additional security, for the
enjoyment of a natural right; and why the magistrate
and Legislature grant it only for a certain term of years.

In the common administration of justice, the way, in
use, to restrain the invasion of property, is to oblige the
offender to repair the damages sustained. Now such is
the nature of the property in question, that it may be
long invaded before the sufferer can discover the offen
der : so that such a one having a fair chance not to be
detected ; and if detected, a certainty of refunding only
what he hath unjustly gained; bad men will have but
too great encouragement to invade their neighbours'

property,

LETTER CONCERNING

property. Therefore, to counteract this undue tempta
tion, it. was natural for such proprietors, in their own
defence, to apply to the state for additional and accumu
lative penalties against the invaders of their right. In
which, they act but as -the State itself doth for the se
curity of Government in general ; when, for the support
*)f that natural allegiance, which all men owe to the so
ciety under which they chusc to live, and whereby they
*re protected, it addeth, by positive laws, the addi
tional sanction of oaths, and other solemn engagements.

. . O o

Now if the State, in this case, can never be supposed
to have waved or superseded its natural claim to alle
giance, and to rest it solely on the oaths taken, or the
engage incuts made ; what reason have we to think that
the subject, in his turn, when he applies to the State for
protection, in the instance in question, should give up or
impeach his natural right, while his only purpose is to
i-< vk addkiona! security for the enjoyment of it?

This leade.th us to our second question, Why the Ma
gistrate and Le^laturu restrain this additional sanction
to a certain ter;n of years. And the reason is evident.
"The petitioners neither require more ; nor doth the State
find, that more is needed. The great temptation to in
vade this property being while the demand for it is great
arid, frequent; which is, generally, on the first publication
of a book, and soiii-j few years afterwards. While this
demand continueth, the proprietor hath need of all addi
tional sanctions, to oppose to the force of the tempta
tion : But vi hen, in course of years, the demand abateth,
and, with it, the temptation; the common legal .security
oi natural rivals k then suificient to keep offenders in
order.

However, as clear and undoubted a property as this is
by nature, und the common principles of society, it can-
li'jt be '.lenieJ, but that the Legis' -.ture may abridge, susr
p'end, or abrogate it within its own jurisdiction, as it is
aeciisltmied to uu wich several other the like rights, for
the Scike of the whole, but, then, it must be done by
wpfLW declaration and decree : implication, inference,
or any mere law-consequence, or even a mistake of judg
ment, in the Legislature, going on a supposition that
there was no natural right where indeed there was, would

be*

LITERARY PROPERTY: \ 413

be, simply, insufficient to abrogate it. And the reason*
is plain, because the believing a tiring to be no natural
right, doth not infer BCJttdgnKrtt, that the enjoyment of ii^
as such,- would be hurtful to the Society ; which judg
ment is the only cause of the Legislature's abridging or
abrogating a natural right.

This was necessary to premise, in order to set a case.
in its true light, which hath, above all others, encouraged
the invasion of property; though the Act, from whence
it arises, was solely contrived to prevent that invasion. I
mean the Act of the Eighth of Queen Anne ; which ig
norance and knavery have concurred to represent as a re
strictive, and notaccumulatirelw; and consequently,
to suppose it the sole foundation, instead of tin addi
tional support, of literary property. It .is in titled, AH
Act for the Encouragement of Learning-, in which
an exclusive right of property, under certain conditions,
is secured, by particular penalties, to authors, and book
sellers claiming under them, for the term of one and
twenty years.

Now in this Act, we are so far from finding any de
claration to abridge, suspend, or abrogate this natural
right (which, as we say, would be indeed sufficient tc*
dissolve it) or any expression intimating the opinion of
the Legislature against its existence (which, as we say,
would not be sufficient) ; that, on the contrary, there is
in the preamble of it, an expression plainly declarative
of their opinion, that authors had. a right, prior to this
Act; and, towards the conclusion, a proviso, which
leaves the question of the right, free from, and undeter
mined by, what is, in this statute, enacted concerning
property.

The "expression is this,— 83fjcrea0 10rilUtt#, IBoofc
geUerg, anfc otfiec |8er0oti0, gafce of (ate frequently
taken tjje llibertp of printing, reprinting, anti pub*
or causing to be prime!), reprint^, anti pub*
, Soofes, ant* otftcr SBritinga, tsitftout tge Con*
sent of tf.e 3utftor0 or]Blil£)pHJ(£€:®E^ of 0uc&
or Eilritingg, to tljeir fcttp great Detriment,
too often to tfie 2&uin of tfiem anti tfieir ;Pami!ie0,
fyc. — 'Now, could the injured parties, here mentioned,
be proprietors of that in which thev had no propeitv r

Or

414 LETTER CONCERNING

Or did the Legislature, in a law for the regulation of sc*
momentous a branch of what was deemed and claimed
as property, use the terms of the subject in question
inaccurately or unfitly ? If it were possible to think so of
a British Legislature, the supposition would be excluded
here ; because, not only the expression, but the scnti~
mctit, necessarily supposes that they used the word PRO
PRIETORS in its strict and and exact signification: it
being a representation of the bad effects from the liberty
taken of printing and reprinting books, without the con
sent of the authors, or their assigns.

The proviso, in the conclusion, is in these words : — -
tptomtefc tfiat notfitng in tfjig act contain*** 0fiaU
Wcitir, or be construct) to *pt*ni>, either to
JDJCCB 4DK, C£>$MF3I»3J anp BlJdD^

, or anp of tftem, or anp pd£R^£)^ or
ga&e, or claim to fiafec, to tfie printing or
reprinting anp Boot or €opp alrca&p printctr or

^csiReaf ®eia cd> Be $»3y£c<fes> — NOW,

though it may be easily granted, that one purpose of this
proviso was to leave undecided all claims, or pretences
of claim, to exclusive printing, from patents, licenses,
fyc. yet the large wording of it appears to have a parti
cular aim at obviating such misconstruction of the Statute,
as if the additional temporary security, thereby given,
either implied that there was no right of property before,
or else abrogated what it found. And the having these
two things in its intention, viz. the natural right, and
that which is founded on patents, seems to be the reason of
its saying that it neither PREJUDICED NOR CONFIRMED :
It being unjust to prejudice a plain natural right',
and inexpedient to confirm an unexamined claim by
patent. For what the Legislature's sense was of this
natural right, appears from what hath been observed
of their use of the word proprietors, in the preamble.

But lastly, in cases where the sense of the Legislature
is uncertain or obscure, There the interpretation of the
supreme Magistrates of Justice hath been always deemed
to have the force of a legal decision. And this decision
hath been made in favour of property, on the Act in
question. For, in the High Court of Chancery, actions
for damages have been sustained, where the action for

forfeiture

LITERARY PROPERTY. 415

forfeiture and penalties on this statute was not competent
in any other Court : Which shews, that that great Ma
gistrate did not consider this Act as a restrictive, but as
an accumulative law. It being, a rule, that posit ivs
correctory laws are to be strictly interpreted. For in
every civil society, experience, shews, that the -subject, ia
many cases, must be put under restraint with regard to
things in themselves lawful, merely because of tlie bad
consequences, to the public, by the abuse of liberty*
But, in all such restrictive laws, right reason, at the
same time, forbids these laws to be extended, in: ths
smallest particular, beyond the letter of the Act. To do
otherwise would be abridging liberty, without authority
of law, which is the same thing with private violence.
This plainly shews the judgment of the High Court of
Chancery to be, that there was a right of property pre
vious to the Statute ; which the Statute had neither abro
gated nor abridged ; and, on that right, the action was
sustained, where the action for forfeiture and penalties
was not competent. For an additional security of pro
perty, made for the benefit, and at the request of the
proprietors, can never be deemed to exclude them from
having recourse, at pleasure, to that legal remedy, which,
on the common principles of a Court of Equity, they
had a claim to, prior to the grant of such additional
security.

All this laid together, it seems abundantly evident,
that no right is taken away by this Act, which authors,
or their assigns, had belore the making of it. And con
sequently that it is no restrictive, but an accumulative
law, brought in aid of a natural right, whose reality I
have here endeavoured to support.

But now, Sir. when I consider to whom I have ad
dressed these reflections, I find myself in the foolish si
tuation of that old Greek Sophist, who would needs en
tertain Hannibal with a lecture on the art of war. And
if my impertinence escape his censure, I shall be in
debted only to your distinguished character of politeness,
and general candour, as well as to your known partiality
and friendship for the Author : For I have ventured to
give my thoughts on a question of law, before One, to

whose

4i 6 LETTER ON LITERARY PROPERTY.

whose ^superior eminence in that profession, we see joined
a force of reason and splendor of eloquence, which make
truth reverenced by those it detects; and justice amiable
even to those it punishes. But where should an author
turn, if not to him who hath, on all occasions, so gene
rously -lent his ministry to the support and protection
of letters, whenever they have been reduced to apply
to justice lor' relief;' arid to whose successful patron
age they are principally indebted for that share of secu
rity which they, at present, enjoy? Tor (to conclude my
application to you, in behalf of learning, with the words
of your favourite AUTHOR) " Non causidicum nescio
" quern, neque proclamatorem, aut rabulam conquirimus,
" sed eum virum qui primum sit ejus artis antistes: Qui
" scelus fraudemquc nocentis possit dicendo subjicere
" odio civium, supplicioque constringere ; idemque in-
u genii praesidio, innocentiam judiciorum peena liberare ;
" idemque languentem labentemque populurn aut ad
" decus excitare, aut ab errore deducere, aut inflammare
" in. improboS; aut incitatam in bonos, mitigare."

APPENDIX:

CONTAINING

LETTERS,

BETWEEN

Ml. MIDDLETON AND MR. WARBURTON,
173-6;

AND BETWEEN

DR, LOWTH AND DR. WARBURTON,

IN

1756.

VOL, XII.

K3~ IN the " Discourse," prefixed to the first volume, the
Header has seen Bishop HURD'S high commendation of these
LETTERS; and his promise to gratify the Public, "in due time,"
with a larger collection, out of his correspondence with our
Author: — This Collection has since appeared, under the title •
of Letters from a late Eminent Prelate to one of his Friends : and
by a communication of the date 1750, we learn, that Bishop
\Vaiburton thought Dr. MIDDLETON'S talents " appeared no
where to more advantage" than in the Letter which begins this
Appendix. — Ed.

BETTERS

©it. MIDDLETOX AND ME. WARBURTGN.

cm. :»i&DDL£2iox ;ro MR.

SIR, Dorchester^ Sept, 11, 1736.

YOUR Candour, f hope, has already prevented me
in -suggesting some favourable excuse for my long
silence. The truth, which .is always the best apology, is,
•that I was absent from .Cambridge, when your letter
arrived there.; and though it was transmitted to me at
this place, yet it found ni€ in no condition to answer
.it, cither to your satisfaction or my own, I am here
•<mprovi<fed of Ttdlifs Works, .and without the help of
my papers ,to furnish any hints to me on the subject;
spending .my time suitably to the taste and temptations
of the country, in cards at home, and sports abroad ,* yet
I could not longer defer ,to pay my thanks at least for
4he great entertainment, that k; gave me ; with promise
of further payment, as soon as I am able.

The point that you undertook to make good conccrn-
•ing Tn Hi/, is, that he, did not believe a jut tire state.
In proof of which you maintain, that in his K}) is ties only,
•of all his Works, we arc to look for his refit sentiments.

This, though supported by you very ingeniously, is
not, I own, agreeable to the notion that I had termed
from my general acquaintance with his writings : and as
I have not yet had kisure to make it the subject of a
particular enquiry, so at present I can only give my loose
and indigested thoughts on the matter; which I shall do
very freely, and in the method that you have sketched
out to me.

You assign four reasons of the difficulty of discover-

E 2 ing

420 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETON

ing Tally's opinions on the important questions of phi
losophy, i . The character of the ancient philosophy in
general : 2. The manner in which the Romans received
the Greek philosophy : 3. The nature of that philo
sophy, which Tully espoused : 4. The peculiar cha
racter of the man.

i. By the first, you mean the double doctrine of the
old masters; the external, and internal ; the one for
the vulgar, the other for the adept. But whatever effect
this had in Greece, where that way of teaching seems
to have been dropp'd, long before Tully ; it certainly had
none in Rome, or at least in Tully 's writings : The end
and purpose of which was to explain to his countrymen,
in the most perspicuous manner, whatever the ancients
had taught on every article, either of speculative or prac
tical knowledge.

12. The Romans, you say, were far from the humour
of the Greeks ; and did not regard the doctrine of the
sect, that they espoused, as a rule of life, but a
kind of furniture only for their rhetoric schools.
But I see no ground for this distinction ; if there was any
between them, the Greeks were certainly the more dis
putatious, and, agreeably to St. Paul's character of
them, more curious and fond of every thing new.
Cato, you see, from the testimony, that you produce,
made the Stoical doctrine his rule of living ; and
though he is laughed at for it by Cicero, yet not for
making philosophy his rule, but that particular phi
losophy, which was incompatible with common life.

There is a letter from Tully to Trebatius, upon his
turning Epicurean; in which he rallies him for his new
principles, which must necessarily spoil the lawyer, as
breaking through all the old forms of securing faith and
property amongst men : and concludes that if he was
serious in the change, he was sorry for it ; if to make
his court only to Pansa, he excused it. (Fam. 1. 7. 12.)
This shews, that the choice of a sect was not thought a
thing indifferent, but supposed to operate in life and
manners. If then, as Tully says, a great part took up
their philosophy disputandi causa, non it a vivendi; yet
this was not the thing generally intended by it, but on
the contrary what was generally thought blameable. -Nor

was

AXD MR. WARBURTON, 1736. 421

was it peculiar to the Romans, anymore than to the
Greeks, or to any other people, not to live up to the
rule, that they professed-, just as we see it now in the
case of religion, which a great part in all countries con
tend for very warmly, yet practise very coldly.

3. You make the nature of Tally's philosophy
another source of difficulty in finding out his real senti*
ments. His philosophy was of the Academy, and
whether of the old or the new, much the same. But
when you call it perfectly sceptical, you seem to con
found it with a different sect, whose distinguishing
character was to doubt of every thing : Whereas the
principle of the Academy was only to suspend their
assent, till by examining all sides of a question, they
could discover the probable. For in speculative enqui
ries they disclaimed all certainty; and thought nothing
so unworthy of a philosopher, as a rash assent, and the
embracing for true what he did not comprehend. They
imagined truth and falsehood to be so mixt and blended
by nature, that it was extremely difficult, if not im
possible, to separate them entirely; that probability was
the utmost, that human wit could arrive at. This there
fore they made their rule, both of thinking and acting.
What the other sects affirmed with assurance, they made
it their task to confute or shew to be uncertain ; taking
from each still what they liked, and following it, with
this difference only ; that what the others called true,
they called probable.

This, of all others, was the most rational way of phi
losophizing ; subjecting them to no master, no system of
opinions ; but leaving a liberty to chuse, after a free en
quiry, whatever was found most agreeable to reason .and
nature. But what is there in this to create difficulty in
discovering a man's opinions, whenever he thinks lit to
declare them ? It might create, perhaps, some diffidence in
declaring them ; and a disposition, to confute rather what
others assert, than to assert any thing of his own : But
their rule still was as certain and consistent as of any
other sect; and when persuaded of any opinion, they
pursued it as regularly, and explained as freely as any of
the rest.

4. But the embarrass, you say, is completed by the

£ E 3 peculiar

422 LETTERS BZTWEEX Diu

peculiar character of the man ; which you consider in-
three different capacities, of the orator, the statesman,
the philosopher] and contend, that he not only contra
dicts in one, what he affirms in another, but Is incon
sistent with himself, even zchvn he speaks from one
find the same' person : Yet,. from the best attention that
I have been able to pay to his history, I find in him but
one general, consistent, glorious character, of a great
and good man, acting and speaking on all occasions;
what the greatest prudence with the greatest virtue would
suggest.

As- an' orator, it was his business to ihforce, with all
the power of eloquence, whatever he thought serviceable
to his client, and useful to the cause that he was defend
ing. Of this- part he acquitted himself with glory ; and
tells us himself, what: the nature of the thing would tell
us for hinaj that we are not to -expect his real sentiments
here.

As a statesman, the case is still the same. In" his ha
rangues to the people, he gives a different account, you
observe, of the same fact, frorh what he had done in the
Senate ; that is, he adapts his style and arguments to the
different genius of each assembly; to engage them both
the more effectually to promote the measures, that' he was
then pursuing.

As a philosopher; if we join the character of ah Aca
demic, we shall iind him equally consistent. For I
cannot help ageing with Bent ley, in taking thisj&r the
key of Iiis philosophical writings, as much as I do witb
you, in your fixing the time of his changing the Academy.
This was the philosophy, that he professed through life;
and to which he professes himself indebted for all his
success in it: And this clew will lead us through that
labyrinth of contradictions, which you seem to discover
in his works.

In his Book of Divination, you say, he combats all
Augury ; but in his Book of Laws declares for it ;
in a manner too serious to suspect him of feigning.
Yet all the matter is, that hr the one he acts the philo
sopher ; in the other the statesman-: In his Treatise on
"Divination, he asserts and establishes it in the first book,
ifl the person of his brother,, by all the arguments, that

AND Mu. WARBURTON, 1736. 423

can be brought for it ; and refutes them all in the second;
in his own person. This is the true spirit of the Academy ;
after examining both sides, to reject what has nothing
solid in it. Yet in his Treatise on Laws, he recom*
mends Augury, and no wonder: for though he laughed
at it as a philosopher ; he had a great opinion of it as a
politician ._: And always speaks of the invention of its
ceremonies, find the making them part of the crcil
constitution, as an instance of the greatest wisdom
and prudence in tJieir ancestors* For it was wholly
agreeable to that scheme of policy, which he constantly
pursued from the beginning to the end of life,- of throw
ing the chief influence and balance of power in state
matters into the hands of the better sort.

Again you lake notice, that in his Booh on the Na~
tare of the God*, he reflects on those, as too curious
or impertinent, who were calling upon him on all occa
sions to declare his own opinion : Qui autcm requirunt,
quid quag ue dc re ipsi sentiamus, curiosius idfaciunt,
qnam necesse cst* (I. i. § 5.) yet in his Academic Ques
tions, he swears that he always speaks what he thinks :
Jurarem .... me et ardcre -studio veri reperiendi,
et ea xcntire, qucc dicerem. (1. 4. § 10.) In the first of
these Works, he professes only to collect what the old
Philosophers had taught ; and, according to the method
of the Academy, to combat the opinion of one sect, with
that of another, without declaring his own : So tint the
difficulty of discovering it is not owing here, as you inti>-
matc, to any obscurity in delivering it; but to his not
delivering it at all. But /// the Academic Questions, as
far as I can understand the passage without the context
to assist me, he does not swear, as you render it, that
he ulw&ya speaks what he thinks, but only, that h£
thinks ic hat he is there speaking : And it so. it con
firms what I have been saying of the Academy, and its
being the true, key of his sentiments.

But you assert, that his sentiments arc not to be^
Collect edjrom any of his writings, that were designed
Jbr the public, which include all but his Letters,
because, in ail his writings of that Jchid, he affected
an ob'srurity. This is th-e first time that I have ever
teen the character of obscure applied to Tulles writ-

i: E 4 ings :

424 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETON

ings : Surely no man's style was ever farther removed
from it, or more remarkably shining and perspicuous^
than his. But the whole charge of obscurity, and all the
contrast of sentiments found, in different parts of hia
works, may easily be. solved, by considering only the
different circumstances, in which they were delivered.
By attending to this, we shall find his very contradictions
to be consistencies, and nothing else but what was pru
dent and proper to be said by one and the same man ;
acting the different parts of the orator, the statesman,
the philosopher.

To come then at last to the principal1 point in ques
tion; the discovery of his real thoughts concerning a
future state, which are to he collected only, you say,
from his Epistles. And so lar I agree, that in familiar
letters we may expect to find him more open- and un
disguised, and as far as he touches any subject, treating
5t with less reserve, than in vyorks designed for the public :
Yet all his letters, as you allow, are not of this sort : la
many of them it was his business to say, not so much
what was true, as what would please. But let us see
what he has actually said in the testimonies, that you
have produced from them. In a letter to Atticus,
(1. 4. io.)Aerf de ilia ajubulatione, fors videret, aut si
qui est, qui curet, deus. To Torquatus, (Ep. fam. 1. 6. 3.)
$ed hccc consolatio levis est : Ilia grantor, qua te uti
.spero, ego certe ^itor : Ncc duni ero, angar ulla re,
cum omni vacem culpa : Et si non ero, scnsu omninv
carebo. Again, (ib. 4.) Dei-ride quvd mihi ad consola-
tionem commune tecum est, si jam vocer ad e.iitum
vitte, non ab ea republica avdlar, qua carendum este
dolearn, prctsertlm^ cum id sine ullo sensnj 'uturum
-sit. To Toranius,. (ib. 21.) Cum consilio projici nihil
•possit, una ratio videtur, quicquid ei'cnerit, Jerrc
-moderate, prasertim, cum omnium rerum mors sit
extremum. — Nothing., you say, can be more express
than these passages, against a future state: And
that Tully speaks in them his real sentiments, there
is not the least room to doubt. They were letters
of consolation to his friends, when he himself, by
reason of the ill state of public affairs, most ycanUd

A*

AND MR. WARBURTON, iftf- 425

As to the first of these passages ; you allow it to be a
compliment to the philosophy of his friend Atticus,
who was an Epicurean : and why is it not so too in the
rest ? In the first to Torquatus^ as in that to Atticus,
the case is put hypothetically, si non cro : and the very
use of such a topic in consolation, implies, that these
friends also were Epicureans, antl that he was adminis
tering comfort from their philosophy, not his own, as
likely to have the more weight with them ; or arguing, as
we say, ad hominem, not expressing his real sentiments.

But as this is only conjectural, and, as some may
think, contrary to fact ; let us try what other defence can
be made, and what use in this case of our key of th$
Academy. Though I have often reflected on these
passages, yet my notion has always been, that Tally did
believe a future state. The whole turn of his writings,
and the tenor of his life, shew it : he lived expecting it,
and always, so as to deserve it; and declares it to be a
favourite opinion ; which, though possibly an error, lie
was resolved to indulge. But we must remember still,
that he was an Academic ; that is, that he believed it only
to be probable ; and as probability necessarily admits the
degrees of more and less, so it admits a variety likewise
in the stability of our persuasion* and as Tally himself
says, on another occasion, ijuis ctntem est, tanta quidem
de re, qaiu varie secum ipse disputet ? In a melan
choly hour, when the spirits are low, and the mind under
-a dejection, an argument appears in a very different light ;
objections acquire strength; and what humours the pre
sent chagrin, finds the readiest admission. These passages
were evidently of this kind, written in his desponding
moments ; and, as you say, when he himself most
wanted consolation. • And if we allow them therefore to
express what he really thought at the time, yet they prove^
nothing more, than that he sometimes daub ted of what
he generally believed] consistently with the character
'and principles of an Academic, who embraced no opi
nions as certain.

Thus, Sir, I have given you my free thoughts on what
you were so good as to communicate with regard to
Tully : I will not be answerable for the exactness of
them : they are such only as my recollection could furnish,

without

426 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETON

without the help of Tiillys Works to refresh, or any
testimonies to support them. But as I reserve the more
exact consideration of this argument ta the part of Tullys
life, which was the most employed on philosophy, under
Crtsars tyranny, so I shall be obliged to you for- im
parting any further thoughts on the subject, either to
confirm or confute what 1 have here offered : and if any
occasion of books or friends should invite you again this
winter to Cambridge, where I propose to be about
Michaelmas, I beg you to be assured, that no man will
be more ready to serve you in any manner there, or better
pleased to enjoy as much of your company as your time
and other friends will allow to,
Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

COXYERS MiDDLETOX.

P. S. I should be glad to hear that your great Work
goes on successfully ; and as a sure omen of satisfying
others, that you find more and more satisfaction from it
yourself. When I was last in London, I met with a
little piece, written with the same view and on the same
plan with yours : an anonymous Letter from Geneva,
Evincing the divine mission of Moses, from' the insti
tution of the sabbatic year. The author sets out, like
you, from this single postulatum, that Moses was a con*-
jsummate lawgiver ; and shews, that he could never have
injoined a law so whimsical, impolitic, and hazardous ;
exposing the people to certain famine, as oft as the
preceding or following year proved barren ; ij 'He, who
has ail nature at command, had not warranted the
success of it. The letter is ingenious and sprightly, and
dresses out, in a variety of colours, the absurdity of -the
institution, on the supposition of its being human. It is
in French, and published in Eibliotheque Gcrmanique,
torn. 30.

But will not this gaiety of censuring the Law be found
too adventurous, and expose your postulatum itself to
some hazard ? Especially when there is a fact, gene
rally allowed by the learned, that seems to overturn all
this specious reasoning at once ; viz. that this law of
I he sabbatic year was never observed. For if so, it may
7 be

AND MR. WARBURTCm, 1736. 427

be objected, with some shew of reason, that Moses had
charged himself with the issue of events too delicate, and?
beyond his reach, and imprudently injoiued what use and
experience sheVed to he impracticable.

lam apprehensive likewise, that your Work will not
stand wholly clear of objections : your scheme, as I take
it, is to shew, that so able a man as Moses could not
possibly, have omitted the doctrine of a future state,
thought so necessary to government by all other legis
lators, had he not done it by the evpress direction of
the Deity ; and that under the miraculous dispensa
tions of the theocracy, he could neither want it him
self for the enforcing a respect to his laws, nor yet
tht people for the encouragement of their obedience.
But what was tl>e consequence ? Why the people were
perpetually apostatizing, cither to the superstitions ot~
Mgypt, OF the idolatries of Canaan; and tired with
She load of their ceremonies, wholly dropp'd them at last,
and sunk into all kinds of vice and profaneness; tkl the
Prophets, in order to revive and preserve a sense of reli
gion amongst them, began to preach up the rational-
duties^ of morality, and' insinuate the doctrine of ($
future state.

As in the ether case, then, some may be apt to say, that
Moses had instituted what could not be practised with
out rum to the state ; so in this, that he had overlooked
what could not be omitted without ruin to religion.

I have taken the liberty to propose these hints, thatT
if you think them of weight, you may be better prepanv,'
£o obviate them ; if not, may proceed the more securely
by seeing reason to slight them. As for myself, I cair-
safely swear with Tally, that I have a most ardent de-*
&irc to find out the truth : but as I have generallv
been disappointed in my enquiries, and more successful
in finding what is false than what is true, so I begin, like
him too, to grow a mere Academic, hmnbly content to
take up with the probable. Whatever you have to offer
me of this kind, I shall thankfully embrace; and thougk
I expect as much from you, as I do from any man, yet
in the arduous subject, on which you are engaged, I dart;
not venture to rake my- expectations any higher.

428 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETON

WARBURTON'S ANSWER.

I RECEIVED the favour of your's from Dorchester,
and the best return I can make for it will be to reply to
it in the same free and friendly manner.

Before I give you my thoughts on each head wherein
\ve differ, I would premise one word on the subject in
general. In the third Book of my Defence of Moses I
shall shew, that a future state of rewards and punish
ments (not a future existence merely, such as a resolution
of the soul into the anima mundi, or any other mode of
simple being) was not credited by any sect of philosophy
in Greece, though taught by almost all. I think I prove
this by the clearest passages in antiquity. I go farther,
and shew, not only that they did not, but that they could
.not believe it ; because there was one common principle
held by all, which overturned the notion of a future state
of rewards and punishments. As this principle was
metaphysical, and as, at the same time, it is owned they
held several moral ones, which led naturally to the belief
of future rewards and punishments; 1 shew, in the last
place, that it was the general custom of the philosophers
to be swayed, in their speculative conclusions, rather by
their metaphysical principles than their moral. This
seemed enough for my purpose. But the great character
of CICERO, who transferred the Greek philosophy to
Home, and, as you justly observe, explained to his
countrymen, in the most perspicuous manner, whatever
.the antieiits had taught in every article, whether of
speculative or practical knowledge, made it proper to
examine his sentiments on this point. And though it
might be fairly enough concluded, that he must believe
with his masters, especially as he held with them that
general principle I speak of above, yet two reasons in
duced me to give the short dissertation I sent you. The
one was, that the common prejudice runs the other way,
contracted from several passages in his works/ delivered
either exoteric-ally or under a foreign character. The
other reason was, that iny notion of the manner in which

the

AND Ma. WARBURTON, 1736. 429

the Romans received the Greek philosophy seemed, at
first sight, to weaken my conclusion of Tully s believing
with his masters; so that it was proper to shew, that that
notion might be turned the other way, to the support of
the conclusion.

I shall. now consider your objections to the four-points
I go upon, in the Dissertation 1 sent you.

i . Against what I urged concerning the double doc-
trine, you say, whatever effect this had in Greece,
-where that way of teaching seems to have been droppd
long before Tully, it certainly had none in Rome. —
The doable doctrine *\ take to have been of the essence
of the Greek philosophy, and therefore inseparable from
it. For the /act, I appeal to the writings of the later
Stoics and J?latomsts that are come down to us, and to
the testimonies of Clemens Alex. Origen, Synesius,
&alit$$ the philosopher, Apnleius, and many others. — •
That the Academics practised it, we have Ya//y's own
word, in a fragment preserved by St. Austin, " Mos
*' fuit Academicis occult andi sententiam suam nee earn
" cuiquam nisi qui secum ad senectutem usque vLvis-
^ sent aperiendi" That the Stoics at Rome used it,
I think, Seneca & Works clearly shew ; and that the
Academics of that place did the same, may be seen by a
quotation below, from Ac. Qn. 1. 4. c. 1 8. Nor is this
mode of teaching, which so constantly occurs in anticnt
authors, ever spoken of as a thing disused or become
obsolete. You add — or at least in Tully 's writings-
the. end and purpose of which, was, to explain to his
countrymen in the most perspicuous manner whatever
the antients had taught, $c. Now because this was
indeed the end of most of his philosophic writings, I
conclude they were of that kind which (to use Tally s
own words) were " popularitcr scrip turn, quod t^spixov
*•' appellabant ;' and consequently, that, from such,
his real sentiments were not to be gathered. Why the
distinction is riot ostentatiously used in those writings, is
plain: it is agreed that the use of the doable doctrine
was to hide some tilings from the vulgar, which were
reserved for the adepts; but this end would have been
defeated by laying the mysterious means open to alL

2. To

430 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETON

2. To my notion of the different manner in which the
Romans espoused a .philosophic sect, from what was the
.practice of the *G reeks, you reply — You sec no ground
/or the distinction. If there was any between them,
.the Greeks were certainly the inore disputatious, £c.
lint I »Io not make a disputatious humour a mark of no
close adherence to a set of opinions. On the contrary,
sdaily experience .informs us, that no men are so disputa
tious as bigots, whether in philosophy or religion : and
bigots of the first kind, .the G reel's were -above all other
men. But when, on the authority of Tully, 1 said, that
ihe Romans used the Greek philosophy to .assist them
in their disputations, I urged the ikct as a proof, that
they did not embrace, as true, all the opinions of the sect
&hey espoused : by which I meant, that these several
PHILOSOPHIES, as studies of humanity, (and this is
Twlly's own expression) enabled them to invent readily,
,smd reasoo justly : not on the points of that philosophy
only, from whence the principles or method was taken,,
but on any subject in civil life. And this I am .persuaded
is what TuUy meant. /

You go on — Cato, yr>u see, from the testimony yon
produce, made the Stoical doctrine his rule of living.
By this it would seem as if you supposed I made no
exception to the manner in whk;h, I say, \liellajuans
entered themselves ialo a ^sect. But my words must be
restrained to Tulles magnet pars, who is uiy authority
lor the assertion. You add — And though he is lauglid
~<at for it by Cicero, yet not for making philosophy
Jiis rale, hut that particular philosophy which icas
incompatible icith common lije. I very readily own,
that these words of Tally, taken alone, look yery -much
that way ; and the disputandi causa seems as if the
observation was eonfmed to Stoicism, for that sect had
so entirely engrossed the Dialectics, that the followers of
Zeno were more commonly called Dialcctici than Stoici.
So Galen is generally called Dialecticus. Notwith
standing tins, it plainly appears, I think, from the -context,
that the sense I gave the passage is the true one. — •
Cicero introduces his observation on Cat-o's singularity
in this manner — " Quoniani non est no bis hccc orati&

" habenda,

AKD MR. WARBURTON, 1736. 43*

" hahcnda, aut cum imperita multitudine, aut in
" aliquo convent u agrcitium, qudacius paullo de
" studiis humanitatis, qua $ mihi <§* tfo^'tf wota $ju-*
" cunda sunt, disp-u t abo." Here he declares, his in
tention is not to give his thoughts on the Stoical philosophy
in particular (though that furnished the occasion) but on
the Greek philosophy in general, de studiis humanitatis.
He then runs through the Stoical paradoxes, and con
cludes, " Ilasc homo ingeniosissimus, M. C. — arri-
" puit" <§*6'. — But had it been his intention to confine
his observation to the Stoics, he must have said hanc^
not hfcc ; especially when he says it was taken up dis-
putandi causa ; for luce refers to the foregoing paradoxes,
which had no use in the art of disputation ; that was the
province of their metaphysics.

On the whole, it appears that the words in question
were spoken of the Greek philosophy in general : and as
Cicero laughed at those who took it up virendi, we
must conclude, he espoused itdisputandi causa. If you
doubt this, I can give you Tuilifs own word for it in this
very oration. " Falcbor, cnlm^ C'afo, me quoque in
c; adQlesceniitf), dMisotn faigeirio nico, qu^sisse adju-
•" menta doctilmr." Which, in other words, is, I myself
espoused a Grecian sect dltyiitaudi causa. And this
is full enough for the purpose of my discourse, where it
is only given as one of the causes of the difficulty iu
coming &tTnlltfs real seiitiinents.

3. I make the nature of Tally ^ sect of philosophy
another cause. Kut you say, when I call the way of the
Academy perfectly sceptical, I seem to confound it
with a different sect, whose distingul^iui^ character
was to doubt of every thing. If that, was the character
of the sect you hint at, I am afraid the Academy will be
found to agree but too well with it. But admitting I had
confounded the two sects, I do no more than what the
antients did before me. Sc.vtus Empiric us, a perfect
master of this point, if ever there was any. says (in his
Pyrrhvn. Hypo-t. Li. c. 33.) that some of the antients
held the Academics and Sceptics to bo one and the same,

<p&<Tl pfl/ TCi T\VIS oil YI Ay.Z$V[J'Ziy.Yi ^»A.WTC^I» 91 OLVTY] t?l T*

SxEi^st. And though Scvtuti denies they were exactly
the ^ame, l^ecause, though both agreed that tru-tli could

not

432 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETON

£iot be found, yet the Academics hold there was a differ
ence in those things which pretended to it ; yet at last
he owns that Arcesilas and Pyrrho had one common

philosophy. O [AW roi ApX;!7iA5i(5?, ou T>K p,scrn

•GToofoilvv xxi 0iP')(/tysv, "sr^j/'j ^toi <5Wtt

Aoyotj, a;, ('/-i#i/ ftj/^t vfaiSw rrjt/ XSUT' aJIor-

ft&f>9*. A. Geiiius, too, assures us,
that the difference between the two sects amounted to just
nothing. " Vetm autem qiiftstio § a mult is Scripto-
fl ribus Greeds tractata est, in quid, § quantum,
" Pyrrhonios (§• Academicos Philosoplios intersit. — *
" Utrique enim 2KEUTIKOI, g^liieoi, onrtpfuxoi, dicun-
" tur, quoniam utrique rtihil ajjirmant, nihilque
" .t;omprchen(j,i putant — differre tamen inter sese — •
" Tel maxime propterea exist.iniati sunt Academic!
M quidem ipsum illud .nihil posse d-ecerni quasi decer-
" mint : Pyrrhoni ne id quidem ullo pacto vicleri vcrum
** dicunt, quod nihil esxe rerum v.idetur" L. 13. c. 5,
However, when I said the Academy was perfectly
sceptical, I meant in their prlnclphs of philosophising,
s'ather than in the conduct of their argumeatatio-n : the
remark in the first sense being to my purpose, in the
other, not Academics and Sceptics agreed in these
principles, " That nothing could be knoun, and that
" every thing was to be disputed, without delivering their
" own sentiments at all." The conclusion the Sceptics
drew from hence, was, that nothing was to be assented
to, but the mind kept in an eternal suspense. The
Academics, indeed, concluded that the probable, when
it was found, should be assented to ; but till then, they
were to go on with the Sceptics questioning, disputing, and
contradicting. And in fact they did thus go on, without
ever finding the probable in any thing, further than w hat
was necessary to furnish them with arms for disputing
against every thing. This, indeed, was a contradiction
in their scheme ; but scepticism is ever destructive of
itself. The mischief was, that having allowed the proba
ble thus far, it ind-uced strangers to think better of them
than they deserved ; that is, to think they were consist^
.erit This I take to be the true secret of all the intrigues
of the Academy; which Tully himself enables us to
unravel — Tbajt nothing could be known, or so much as

perceived.

ATCD MR. WARBURTON, 1736. 433

perceived, we have his word. " Opinionibus 8$ Institutis
" omnia teneri : nihil veritati relinqui : deinceps
" omnia tenebris circumfusa -csse dlxerunt. Itaquc
" Arcesilas ncgabat esse quidquam quod sciri posset ^
" ne illud quidem ipsum. Sed oinnia latere censebat*
" i;i occulto. Nequc esse quidquam quod cerni ant
" inteiiigi posslt : Quibus de causis nihil oportere
" neque projiteri neque affirmare quemquam, neque
" assertione approbare." Ac. Qu. 1. l. c. 12.- — That
every thing was to he disputed, without interfering with
their own sentiments, he likewise makes the character of
the Academy. " Carneades vero multo uberius iisdem
" de rebus loquebatur : non quo aperiret sententiani
" suam (kic enim mos patrius Academice ADVERSARI
*' SEMPER OMNIBUS in disputando) sed, &§c. de Orat
" Li. c.i 8. Again — Proprium sit Academice judicium
" suum nullum interponere, ea probare quce similtima
" veri vidcantur, confer re causas, &; quid in quamque
'* sententiam did possit expromere nuila adhibita sua
" authoritatejudicium audientium reliquere integrum
" $ liberum" De Divin, 1. 2. From hence it appears,
that this probable, wrhich, you say, they pursued as
regularly, and explained as freely as any of the rest,
was not any thing that related to their assent or approba
tion, but only what afforded matter for disputing plausi
bly : it was not & probable to sway their judgments, but
to inforce their reasoning. And what was this but being
perfectly sceptical ? Lastly, we have the testimony of
Lucullus, that though the Academics pretended their end
ttas to find the probable, yet, like the Sceptics, they held
their mind in eternal suspense, and continued going oa
disputing against every thing, without ever finding the
probable in any thing, so far as to determine their judg
ments — Rextat illud, quod dicuntveri inveniendi causa
contra omnia dici oportere & pro omnibus, volo igitur
wider e QUID INVEXERINT? Non solemus, inquit,
ostendere. Acad. Qu. 1. 4. c. 1 8. If this answer was
not founded on the double doctrine, it will be hard to
say what it drives at. — Qua sunt tandem ista mysteria?
Ant cur celatis quasi turpe aliquid, Teat ram xenten-
tiam. These mysteries could be nothing but the scep
ticism of the Academy, of \\hich, I think, .Luculjus
VOL. XII. F F truly

434 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETOX

truly says, confi/ndlt vera cum falsis, spoliat no?
Judicio, privat approbation*.

From all this I would draw these two inferences. That
the genius of this philosophy makes it very difficult to
discover the real opinions of its professors ; and conse
quently that Dr. Sent ley was mistaken in supposing
this to be the key to come at Tally's. The other is,
that Tally was not so great a sceptic as his sect might be
supposed to make him ; which I infer, as well from the
manner in which the Romans professed the Greek phi
losophy, as from some express declarations in his writings.
If I had thought him so, it would be absurd to pretend,
as I have done, to find his real sentiments ; yet I think,
the principles of that sect sufficiently influenced him to
justify my first inference.

4. When I urged Cicero's inconsistencies and contra
dictions, as an orator, a statesman, and a teacher of the
Greek philosophy, it was not to shew that he acted
either a weak or an unfair part (from which you have
very well defended him) but that his employment and
course cf life habituated him to dissemble his opinions.
From which it might be fairly collected, that his real
sentiments were not to be discovered in these parts of
his writings ; and consequently, that whatever he there
says in favour of a future state was not to be objected
to my conclusion. This I took to be to the purpose, as
I could then urge the passages in the Epistles with their
due force.

To my quotation from Tully, Ac. Qu. L 4. c. 20.
Jurarem, &;c. you say, — as far as I can understand
the passage, without the context to assist me, he does
not swear, as you render it, that he always speaks
what he thinks; but only that he thinks what he is
there speaking. To determine this point, it is, as you
hint,- necessary to have recourse to the context. Lucullus
had been declaiming very tragically against the.Academy :
part of his accusation is given above. When Tully
enters on its defence, he thinks it necessary to premise
something concerning himself. Aggrediar igitur, says
he, si pauca ante, quasi de FA MA ME A divero* He
then declares, that had he embraced the Academy out of
Vanity^ or love of contradiction, it had not only reflected

AND MR. WARBURTON, 1736. 435

on his sense, but on his honour. Itaque nisi inept unt
putarem in tali disputations id facer e, quod cum de
republica disceptatur fieri interdum solet : Jurarem
per Jovem Deosqae Penates, me § arderc studio veri
reperiendi, <§• ea sent ire qwz dicer em. From hence I
gather, that though the question here be of the Academic
philosophy, and of Cicero, as an Academic, yet as he
tells us he is now to vindicate himself in a point in which
his honour was concerned, the protestation is genei .1,
and concerns his constant turn of rnind, which always
inclined him, he says, to speak his sentiments.

Another observation I would make, is, that Tully here
seems to be sensible that Lucullas had but too much
reason for his charge against the Academics. Why else
does he disjoin his case from theirs, and take a way to
secure himself, whatever became of his sect ?

You conclude this point thus — And if so, it con-
Jirms what I have been saying of the Academy ; and of
its being the true key of his sentiments. When I ob
served that the Academy was not the true key of Tully §
sentiments, it was not because my conclusion, concerning
his opinion of a future state, was at all influenced by the
truth or falsehood of that remark ; but only because I
thought it true. For it is certain, that in all his writings,
he has never once affirmed, in the person of an Aca
demic, that the doctrine of a future state was most
probable.

To my observation, That Tully, in all the writings
which he designed for the public, affected an obscurity,
you reply, — this is the first time that I have ever seen-
the character of obscure applied to Tally's writings :
Sure no man's style was ever further removed from if,
or more remarkably shining and perspicuous than his.
By this it would seem as if you understood me to mean,
" That Tully expressed the sentiments he delivered, ob
scurely" So far from that, I think with you, that his
style is clear and shining in a supreme degree. I meant
(and the subject I was upon confined me to that meaning,
if I would not talk impertinently) he affected to obscure
his real sentiments. This, I thought, I was warranted
to say. not only from his obscurity on the point in ques
tion, but trom the complaint of his contemporaries ; who,

F F 2 we

436 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETON

we find, Nat. Deor. I. 1. c. 5. were at a loss to know

his real sentiments. Now this obscurity is very consistent

with the utmost clearness^ and perspicuity of style; as

-• from his own reply to this complaint. For if

reader's ignorance of his real sentiments in any degree

•rom understanding his works, as it must

have done hat! it arose from a. cloudy and embarrassed

expression, he never could have condemned (as he does)

their curiosity as idle and impertinent — qui ait 1: em re-

yuirunt, quid qaaqae de re ipsi sentiarnus, curiosius

idjaciuiii, quam necesse est.

> You justly call the principal point in question the con
sideration of hi^jLettej's. Here 1 shall be very short. I
apprehend, this sort of language, which he so often uses,
in them,—" mortem quam etiam beati contcmnerv
" aebeamuf, propterea quod nultum sensum esset ha-*
"bit ura. — Nee cnim dum ero an gar ulla re, cum
" omni vacem cuipa : Etsi non ero sensu omnino
" careho — pr&sertim cum omnium re rum mors sit
" extrcmum"-—\ say. I apprehend this to be the
very ian^uv.ge of the Epicureans; and is best interpreted
by hi.s favourite })oet, Lucretius, who likewise uses it as
hn antidote against the fear of death. —

" Scilicet ha if (I no bis quicquam, qui NON ERIMUS turn?
" Aceidere om/iino poterit SEXSUMQUE movere."
• You think that Tulh/ <lid believe a future state, and
that the whole turn of his writings shews it. But you
say. — In a melancholy hour, when the spirits are lou\
find the wind under a dejection, an argument appears
rery dift'erent tight ; objections acquire strength;
what humours the present chagrin, finds the
rendie^t admission. These passages icere evidently of
this kind, written in his desponding moments, and, as
you saij, when he himself most wanted consolation.

To this give me leave to reply, It is allowed that a
desponding temper, like that of Cicero^, would in a
melancholy hour be always inclined to suspect the worst.
But to what is its suspicion confined ? Without doubt to
the issue of that very affair which occasioned the distress.
A melancholy hour would have just the contrary influence
on his other cogitations. And this is the wise disposition
of nature; that the less support the uimd has persuaded

itself

MR. WARBITRTON, 1736. 437

•Ttself, It shall find, in one quarter, the more it endeavours
to make it up, in an abundance of hope from another.
So that, unless Cicero was made differently from all
other men, one may venture to say, his

philosophy permitted him to entertain any
hopes at all) would have risen in proportion to his fears
-of the pt]esen.t-

I come to your P. S. in which I find myself obliged to
you for your kind enquiries into the progress of my
Work. I have nothing to apprehend in discredit to the
iriethod of it, but the application of that method to cases
xvhich will not bear it. The instance you give me of the
tract on the Sabbatic year is one of these cases. I
suppose an internal proof can never be drawn from thence
of the divinity of the Mosaic mission; though for rea
sons different from yours: For I reckon, that this parti
cular institution might be well accounted for, even 6n the
supposition of mere human legislation. For ail agree?
that MOSES'S main end was the abolition of idolatry,
and preservation of the Unity. The institution of the
Sabbath is shewn by Spencer and others to be, of all
the ceremonial, the very rite most conducive to this end..
So that it seemed to be fit, nay necessary, that the prin
cipal rrtc, conducive to the principal end, should be very
well secured. Hence the Sabbath was supported by a
.Sabbatic year ; and further strengthened by a year of
Jubilee. As to the civil consequences of a Sabbatic
year ; a relaxation from culture, in the proportion it re
quired, must be extremely useful to such a soil as Judcea,
which, to preserve its fertility, required a remission of at
least one year in seven. A partial rest, of the several
parts, in rotation, had, indeed, been tire eligible way,
had nothing else been to be considered. But, on this,
no Sabbatic rite could have been founded. So that a
total and periodic cessation from culture was necessary.
-But then, by a wise provision in other parts of the in
stitution, Moses obviated the inconveniencies that some-
limes arise from a total rest. To speak only of that
vhich forbad commerce with strangers (and, for the same
end, viz. to prevent idolatry) from whence would follow
•.their having greater stores of corn than could be con-

iVF- sumed

43S LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETON

sumed. And the Sabbatic year being fixed, and the
event of it foreseen, they had warning and ability to lay
in supplies lor that delect. To this, if we add, that,
though, in the Sabbatic year, they did not enjoy the
fruits of culture, yet; what came without, they were at
liberty to use, we must I think conclude, that a \\ise
Legislator, who found use in a Sabbatic year, for the
advancement of his ends, would venture to institute it,
though he had no expectation of a miraculous supply;
as the natural consequences were so little to be dreaded.

There is but one solid objection, humanly speaking,
to this institution, that I know of; which is this, that,
when the Jews fell under a foreign dominion, their
rnasu-rs made them pay tribute on the Sabbatic year.
And this indeed was a heavy oppression, But it reflects
not at ail on the wisdom of the lawgiver. For if Moses
had, as he pretended, a divine character, foreign domi
nion was a punishment for idolatry ; and these circum
stances crmde that dominion a punishment in the degree it
was intended. But if Moses was a mere human law
giver, it. had been impertinent to have provided for this
case; because, from his knowledge of the world, he would
have concluded, that such foreign dominion must have
been the dissolution ^f his republic, and, consequently,
attended with a speedy obliteration 'of its rites.

Having cleared up this matter, and disengaged it from
all relation to mine, I proceed to consider what it is that
sticks with you in my case, and hinders you from giving
me that full assent to my opinions, which I should be
always ambitious of gaining.

You think, some may be apt to say that in this
matter of a future state, Moses had overlooked what
could not be omitted without ruin to religion ;Jor the
consequence of his omission was this, the people were
perpetually apostatizing, either to the superstitions
of Egypt, or the idolatries of Canaan : And tired
with the load of their ceremonies, wholly dropped
them at last; and sunk into all kinds of vice and
profane-ness; till the prophets, in order to revive and
preserve a sense of religion amongst them, began to
preach up the rational duties of morality, and insi
nuate the doctrine of a future state,

*-* ** ••• v-

You

MR. WARBU-RTON, 1736. 439

You think, it may be said, Moses had overlooked
•what could not be omitted without ruinjof religion.
But, whatever other conclusion may be drawn from your
premises, I think I have obviated and excluded this, by
shewing that my adversariesjhe Deists have, with full
•consent, allowed, that Moses was a consummate law
giver. And, but upon that principle, indeed, they
could never, with any plausibility, deny Moses a foreign,
that is, a divine assistance.- Now the chief part of le
gislation is perfectly to understand the various effects
religion has on mankind. But as the -concession of our
adversaries is a very slippery security; and, at best, the
resting on it is often only arguing ad hominem, by which
nothing can be shewn but the inconsistency of those with
whom we have to deal, I have secured their concession
by the inforcement of many instances, which shew
Moses 's great skill in legislation ; and make it very im
probable that so great a master in his art should blunder
so strangely in the very first principle of it; a principle
that chiefly distinguished the school he came from.

But you say, TEe people were perpetually aposta
tizing either to the superstitions of Egypt, or the
idolatries of Canaan. It is certain they were. But
this makes nothing for your inference, unless it could be
•shewn, that they sought a future state in those super
stitions, as a suppodTfor "reTTgionT TJut this was by no
means the case. You yourself give another, and indeed
the true reason; they were tired with, the load of their
cereinomes. And no wonder, for they were" chaste and
severe, and in that, rather than in their -nuinher, diffe
rent from the ceremonies of their neighbours, which were
performed with all the jollity, and lubricity, that a profli
gate people were capable of inventing.

If we suppose the omission of a future state inclined
them to this defection from the law of Moses, one of
these two effects must have followed, which did not:
Were they vicious and debauched, they would have sunk
into irreligion7~and"" rejected the doctrine of Providence:
were they virtuous, they would have borrowed the doc
trine of a future state from their neighbours, and nothing
.more than what depended on it. And I say not this-at
random. For though, at the time in question, this was

F F 4 not

440 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETON

not the case of the Jewish people, either to be virtuous,
or under the ordinary dispensation of Providence ; yet
there was a time, during the Jezvish Commonwealth,
•when these two circumstances met together; and, at that
.precise time, they did what I here suppose, in such cir
cumstances, they must needs do; that is, borrow of
-their Pagan neighbours this doctrine of a future state,
and no more. I conclude, therefore, that, whatever it
was which occasioned their frequent apostasy, it could
not be the omission of the doctrine of a future state,
"because we find no connexion between the supposed
•cause and effect.

You go on and say, — And tired with the load of
their ceremonies, wholly dropped them at last, and
sunk into all kinds of vice and profaneness, till the
prophets., in order to revive and preserve a sense of
religion amongst them, began to preach up the
rational doctrines of morality, and insinuate the
•doctrine of a future state.

I presume this cannot be the exact case, even from
your own representation. For if they had wholly
dropped the ceremonies at the time of the coming of the
.prophets, these, who profess the intent of their mission
to be the re-estahiishrnent of the law of Moses, should
have begun their preaching with the necessity of observ-
Jng the ceremonies: Whereas they did, as you say, and
as the Bible assures us, begin with preaching up the,
rational duties of morality. This seems to shew, that
the Jews rather stuck to their ceremonies, to the vio
lation of the duties of morality, than that they had wholly
dropped them. And Scripture warrants this conclusion,
.To ic hat purpose (says God by the prophet Isaiah) is
the multitude of your sacrifices? I am full of your
burnt -offerings, and I delight not in the blood of
bulls or of lambs. Bring no more vain oblations.
Incense is an abomination to me. The new moons and
sabbaths, tJie calling of assemblies I cannot away
with. Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul halcth. This looks like a very strict adherence
to their ceremonies. Here we see, the fasticlium, the
loathing, comes from God, and not from the people.
From whence I would beg leave to obseiver that though
3 wo

AND MR. WARBURTON, 1736. 441

\ve can, from the circumstances above mentioned, sec
the reason why the prophets should preach up righteous
ness, in preference to ceremonies, when these had got the
upper hand ; yet, without looking further, we can never
.account for it, why Gad is brought in, speaking with so
much contempt and hatred of a law of his own giving.
We canuot, I sav, account for this, without admitting:;
the common, nvtiam of theology, which teach that it
was to prepare the people for a new dispensation. And
if we consider how much more and more the people grew
besotted with their ctrc-friniies even to the coming of
Christ, we shall perhaps be induced to think well of this
•explanation.

y<x* add, in the last place,— And insinuate the
doc trine of a future state. You must suppose this
wa- done to supply Moses's omission of it, or it makes
nothing for your purpose. But, if this were the intention,
it was very vieposierously executed.

1 . Because it was, as you yourself confess, only an insi
nuation. And it was the practice (and indeed the neces
sity of the thing speaks it) for all lawgivers, when they
employed this sanction of a future state, to inculcate it,
not by insinuation, but in the most open and explicit
manner.

2. Because this insinuation of the prophets was so
extremely obscure, that, when afterwards the leaders of
the Jewish people saw indeed a necessity of introducing
the doctrine, they found so little in the prophets to build
upon, that they rested the revelation of it solely on
tradition.

3. But it is still more evident from what follows, that
the doctrine of a future state was not insinuated for the
end you suppose : there was a period in the Jeicish state,
as is here hinted at, and will be proved at large in my
book, when the governors of it found it necessary to sup
ply this omission. But how did they do it? Not by
dark insinuations like their predecessors, but in the
plainest and most express manner, like the Gentile law
givers. And lest it should be thought, that the supplial
of the omission now did in any wise derogate from the
perfection of the Mosaic scheme, I shew, that this was
done at that precise time when God had withdrawn his

extraordinary

44* LETTERS BETWEEN DR. MIDDLETOX

extraordinary providence. Nor was this rabbinical
doctrine, of a future state, any revelation from God, b<;t
composed of parts picked up from amongst their Pa^an
neighbours, varnished over indeed with the authority f,f
those dark prophetic insinuations. Which appears, as
from many other particulars, so especially from this, that
it was founded on the Pythagoric Metempsychosis, which
at this time was the general mode of the Pagan future
state.

On the whole then it appears, that no good account can
be given of the conduct of the prophets, in this matter of
insinuation, if their end was what you suppose. But
take in the scheme of a new dispensation, and all be
comes clear and full of wisdom. For a future state,
taught by revelation, is not immediately founded on the
same principle with that taught by natural religion. The
latter stands immediately on this principle, That God is
just, and will give to every one according to his
works; therefore, if the distribution of good and evil
be not made here, it will be hereafter. But the future
state of revelation stands only mediately on this, and
immediately on its being a restoration to a lost inhe
ritance, purchased by a Redeemer. Now, though the
other mode of a future state might be taught clearly and
explicitly at any time, yet, it is evident, that this could
not be preached up till the time of that restoration and
re dew]) tic::. The Redeemer and his work must be
coeval, and go hand in hand. Accordingly, we find,
that when the prophets gave dark insinuations of the
Redeemer, they gave dark insinuations of redemption^
at the same time': but more, they could not do. ^nd
this, I presume, is a reasonable account of their conduct
in their insinuating (as you rightly say they did) the
doctrine of a future state.

You have now, Sir, my thoughts on your objection,
vrhich, acute and learned as it is (MC! it is so in a high
degree) is yet, by what I can see, founded in that para-
logism of non causa pro causa.

To deal ingenuously with you, I think the frequent
relapses of the Jews into idolatry has something, at first
view, very shocking on the revelation-scheme. But then
I think the objection which may be raised, on this cir
cumstance,

AND MR. WAREURTON, 1736. 443

cuinstance, holds rather against my conclusion directly,
than, as you put it, by the medium of rny premisses.
As thus, — u If the Jews were, indeed, under an extra-
" ordinary providence, how could they possibly relapse
" so often into idolatry? That relapse implying a re-
" jection of the truth of the religion delivered to them
" by Moses." Now though this has the appearance
of weight, yet I suspect it receives it all from the influence
which a set of mere modern ideas has upon us. To
embrace a new religion and to condemn the old of
Jalse/tood, are actions so inseparable, and go so constantly
together, that the union seems founded in the nature of
things. But, in truth, the association is accidental and
arbitrary : "and more than that, unknown to the antients,
as I have hinted at in the third part of my book of the
Alliance : now, if this observation be well founded, it
will be no diminution to its credit, that it is capable of
being applied to the solution of more difficulties than one.
The antient Pagans, possessed with the notion of local
deities, to whom the several parts of the earth were divided
into shares, readily credited the truth of one another's
revelations, and as readily, on any sinister accident, went
over to one another's religion. And though the Jewish
law obviated and condemned this principle of intercom-
munity, it was no wonder that a people bred up under
that universal prejudice, and who had several institutions,
which, by prejudiced minds, might be thought to look
that way, should be apt to go into such visions. That
they did, I will venture to say their whole history shews ;
as in many other particulars, so in this, that in their fre
quent defections they did not lay aside the Mosaic
worship, but only polluted and corrupted it by a large
mixture of Pagan rites.

If then it be allowed, that the Jews, when they fell
into idolatry, did not reject the Jewish religion as a false
pretence to revelation, all the force of the objection
vanishes. And I have observed above what strong temp
tations a vicious people had to neglect such a religion as
that of Moses, for such a one as that of Canaan.

Newark, Sept. 20, / am, 8$c.

' W, WARBURTOX,

444 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. LOWTH

LETTERS*

BETWEEN

DR. LOWTH AND DR. WARBURTON,

LETTER I.
TO THE REV. DR. WARBURTON.

SIR, Winchester, Sept. 9, 1756.

OUR good friends Dr. C. and Mr. S. have agreeably
to your desire communicated to me some particulars of
the conversation, which you have lately had witn them
relating to ine : from which I collect, that you think you
have reason to be offended with me on account of some
things which I have said in rny Prelections on the subject
of the book of Job, which you look upon as aimed against
you ; and that you expect that I should explain myself
on this head. I am much obliged to you for the regard
ivhich you have been pleased to express for me, and for
your candid and generous manner of dealing with me on
this occasion : and I shall endeavour to return it by
dealing as fairly and as openly with you.
, The reasons for my treating of the book of Job in the
manner which I have done, lest they should be mistaken,
I have there given j and that I might not give offence,
have prefaced those Lectures with an apology, which was
perhaps unnecessary. Having examined and considered
the subject as well as I was able, I found myself obliged
to differ in opinion from several writers of great authority
in the Republic of Letters ; such as Grotius, Le Clerc,

* These Letters (first published by Dr. Lowth)shew the grounds
of that misunderstanding which had taken place between the writers
of them in 1756';, and the amicable manner in which it was com
posed. For the revival of it in 1766, see the Discourse prefixed to
the first volume of this Edit.

Bishop

; AXD Da. WARBURTON, 1756. 445

Bishop Hare, yourself, and many others : It was not my
business, and mueh less was it my desire, to enter into a
formal dispute with any one; ail I had to do was to
declare in a few words my own sentiments, and to explain
my hypothesis, so far as to make myself understood,
when i came to treat of the subject; which it was abso
lutely necessary for me to treat of, as being a principal
and essential part of my plan. I thought the book of
Job the most antient extant, that it had no relation to
the affairs of the Israelites, that it was neither allegorical
nor properly dramatic; in all which I disagreed not only
with you, but with one, or other, or ail of the authors
above-mentioned, and a hundred others, whom I need
not name to you now, nor was it at all more necessary
for me to name them then. You seem to think I ought
to have quoted you, or referred to your book: and a
friend of yours charges me with writing against you, and
being afraid of you. Your friend is mistaken in both
these particulars ; and the ground of your complaint I
cannot possibly comprehend. Why should I single out
you, and attack you for opinions, which were common
to you with twenty other authors of note? Would this
have been a mark of respect to you ? Would it not rather
have argued a busy and a litigious spirit in me ? There
were several living writers of great learning and eminence,
who stood just in the same situation with regard to me,
that you did. What should I have done? Should I have
agreed with you all? That was impossible. Should I
have complimented you all, or should I. have contended
with you all? To have done either would have been
equally unnecessary and impertinent. I have never heard,
that any of those gentlemen have been offended with me,
for acting with respect to them just in the same manner
as I have done with respect to you.

But you too it seems think, that I have written against
you ; that is, that I have aimed at you in particular, and
attacked opinions that are peculiarly yours. I have upon
this occasion taken a review of your Dissertation, and
of my own Lectures, and cannot find upon what it is
that you ground this charge. I have marked the pas
sages in the latter which seemed most likely to have
:., given.

446 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. LOWTH

given you umbrage, and beg you would give yourself the
trouble to turn to them. P. 312. Nunquam in dubium,
&c. this cannot possibly be understood of you, being
plainly restrained to those who conclude, that if the
poem be parabolical, therefore the story is fictitious : the
absurdity of which you yourself expose. In p. 310, I
refer to the dispute on the text supposed to relate to the
resurrection ; to the Bishop of London, Dr. Hodges,
&c. I believe, I had not you then in my thoughts :
however, if I had, I see nothing that should offend you
or any one. P. 320, observe, that I speak of the opi
nion, that the poem is dramatic, as what has for some
time almost universally prevailed among the learned.
Beside, I do not see how the question, whether the poem
be strictly dramatic or not, at all* affects your main argu
ment. So that this discourse upon the whole cannot be
supposed to be directed particularly against you. In the
next page I point out more particularly the authors
whom I have in view, by using their own expressions :
loquuntur cnim, &c. To give you full satisfaction here,
and at the same time to save you and myself the trouble
of a multitude of references, I beg leave to refer you
only to two short passages: Bishop Hare's note at the
end of the CVIIth Psalm; and Calmet's Preface to Job,
about the middle, the paragraph begins with, Mais sans
nier, £c. where you will find enough to account for every
thing I have there said, and even for every expression
which I have used. If there are any other passages
which offend you as meant of you particularly, I assure
you most sincerely that they have escaped my notice ; be
so good as to point them out to me, and I will endeavour
to give you further satisfaction.

Upon the whole, I did not mean to offend, neither do
I think I have given any cause of offence. The subject
lay at least as much in my way, as it did in yours : I
had as good a right to pursue my subject, and to deliver
my sentiments with freedom, as you had. I could not
have spoken upon it at all without dissenting from you in
conjunction with many others, and I don't know how I
could have signified my dissent more inoffensively. I
cannot have misrepresented your particular notions, for

I never

AND DR. WARBURTON, 1756. 447.

I never intended to represent them at all, nor had I any
tiling to do with them. Nay, as far as I can recollect,
I verily believe, that at the time when I wrote those
Lectures I had not your book before me; so far was it
from my intention to cavil at your Dissertation. In a
word, my Lectures, and every expression in them, might
have stood just as they do now, though your Dissertation
on Job had never been written.

I beg the continuance of that regard and esteem,
which you have been so kind as to express towards me:
I will not now tell you how highly I shall prize it: your
friend above-mentioned, the author of the Dissertation
on the Delicacy of Friendship, has stopped my mouth,
and makes me very cautious of saying any thing that
may be construed into flattery or fear of you. 1 call
him your friend, because I suppose he pretends to be
so : what your opinion of him is, I cannot tell ; but I
think you owe him little thanks for his pains. lie has
at least shewn more zeal than discretion in the undertak
ing, and more malevolent wit than good sense or honest
intention in the performance; the manifest tendency of
which is to sow strife, and to foment discord; and its
natural effect, if it has any, must be to lessen the number
of those, who wish well to you and your designs : and I
say so much of it in order to assure you, that it will not
have that effect with me.

As to my opinions, if they stand at ail in your way,
and if you should think them worthy of your notice, I
ask not your favour for them : you will treat them as you
shall think your own cause and the cause of truth re
quires. I do not as yet see any reason to depart from
them ; but am not so fond of them, as to be inclined to
enter into a dispute with any one in defence of them.
I shall be offended with no man merely for differing from
rne in sentiment upon any subject; much less upon points
so very doubtful, and upon which no two persons, out of
all that examine and judge for themselves, either ever have
agreed, or probably ever will perfectly agree. As to the
manner in which you shall treat them, I leave it entirely
to your own consideration ; I shall be very little con
cerned about it. If you use me. otherwise than I deserve,

your

44* LETTERS BETWEEN DR. LOWTH

your own character will suffer, and not mine. Lay aside
all regard to rne upon this occasion ; but respect yourself
and the public.

I am, Dear Sir,
Your most obedient humble Servant,

R. LOWTIU

LETTER If.
TO THE REV. DR. LOWTH.

DEAR SIR, Prior Park, [Sept.] 17, 1756.

I HAD, this day, the favour of your letter of the pth,
and think myself much obliged to our two brethren
for this good office, which i hope will have the desired
effect : And to promote it, all I can, I will follow your
example in the frankness and openness of this eclair-
cissement.

My complaint was not for your differing from me ; nor
yet for your manner of expressing that difference ; but
for, what I conceived to be, a misrepresenting me. — You
yourself shall be judge. P. 64 — non eo quod perma-
were post mortem animos non crederent, quod doctis
quibusdam placuit; sed— -You won't deny that I am
here meant. Yet you might have understood by my
book, that I hold, " that the early, as well as later,
Jews believed the permanency of the soul ; only, having
nothing, in their Law, of a state of future rewards and
punishments, the early Jews had no interesting reflections
concerning that permanency, and paid no attention to it.

P. 65 — neque eos hac in parte vel minimum sacri
codices adjuvere ; baud quia hanc iis cospitionem invi-
dcret Divina Revelatio, sed quia — Was it not invidious,
to insinuate that I had represesented divine Revelation
as envying or grudging the Jews this blessing? when I
'had shewn the reason to be, that it did not belong to
their Economy ; not for that strange reason, quia humanab
mentis conditio earn omnino non recipiat, but because
the doctrine of life and immortality was reserved for

another

AND DR. WARBURTON, 1756. 449

another teacher. I call your reason, a strange one,
because the most ignorant and unlettered are capable of
comprehending all "that Christianity teaches concerning
this matter. But I apprehend, in the words I here
allude to, you entirely mistake the question you was
upon — Qualis itaque ab animis a corpore sejunctis vita
viveretur, quis eorum locus, forma, conditio, Hebrasi
juvta cum cateris inortalibus in summa ignoratione
versabantur. For the question was not, Whether the
vest of mankind had juster notions of the state and
condition of the soul in a state of separation; but whether
they had not the rational belief of a future state of re
wards and punishments in general, which the Jews wanted.
It is this also, which is the proper subject for poetic
ornament, (the thing you are upon) not the metaphysic
truth of things, which is too meagre for this entertain
ment (as you may see by the 6th B. of Virgil) ; as well
as too abstracted for the condition of the human mind.

P. 32 j. — Cum Poema Jobi pro vero ac legitimo
Dramate cujusmodi sunt Gro'corum Tragceditf minims
haberi posse contenderem— Had the reflection ended
here, I could not possibly have guessed whom you had
in your eye : Because, I believe, no critic on this side
the Cape of Good Hope ever said or thought, the book
of Job to be of the species of the Greek Drama. But
when I read the following words — Hoc autem ut conce-
damus, vix erit satis; sunt qui majus quiddam postulare
videntur. Loquuntur enitn de rerum constitutione, de
catastrophe dramatis, @«ov CCTTO /uu^av^j induci dicunt —
iisdem certe vocibus utuntur, &c. When I read this, I
say, I could no longer doubt, that I -only was meant;
because I speak of all these things: and of the God
from the machine^ no one could speak but me; because
no one else, in their interpretations of the book of Job,
contended for the thing understood by it You seem
yourself to have been sensible that this needed a soften
ing, by your corrective, — iisdem certe vocibus utuntur.
Perhaps though, you may think, that my applying the
terms of the Greek stage, to this book, fairly inferred
that I supposed the writing to be of the same species.
If so, give me leave to observe, I could do no other,
though I thought it of a different species, Whoever

VOL. XII, " Go goes

450 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. LOWTII

goes about to shew that a work is of such or such a
.genus, if he would write intelligibly he cannot avoid
using the terms of that specks oi it, which is best
known or understood. Thus when I say, religion com
poses a society, and, in my account of the nature of
this society^ I make use of the words, magistrates, laws,
sanctions (words which properly belong to civil society)
am I to be understood as holding, that religion is of that
species, called civil society, or that it is of the genus
only of society ? But to prove, you are disposed to do as
much honour to the book of Job as any man, you con
clude, by shewing, that the book has not all the artifice
of the Greek drama; yet the composer was capable of
giving it that advantage. — Profecto qui reputabit, &c.
is nunquam potent sine summa admiratioue intueri tot
ante srcculis natum poema, tarn pulchre inventum, tarn
solerter dispositum, tarn perfecte expletum, tarn singularis
exempli; quod similitudinem atque imaginem quandam
dramatis statim arripuit, unde non difficile fuisset ad
ipsum absoluti operis exemplar ascendere, &c. Which
would put one in mind of the religious caution of good
Sir R. Blackmore, who, in his paraphrase of this famous
book, assures us, that though he will not positively
affirm, that Job actually washed his feet in butter, yet
he makes it plainly out, that Job's dairy afforded butter
enough for that purpose.

And now, Sir, reflect a little without prejudice : and
ask yourself, whether these passages bear the least mark
of good, or even of indifferent will, towards me ; though
I should allow (as I am very ready to do) that you had
no formed intention of misrepresenting me.

If you should say, your design was that they should
neither bear the marks of good, or of evil will, towards
me (this neutrality being all, as your letter seems to hint,
I had to expect of you) then let me go on to a passage or
two, which seem to speak your disposition still stronger.

P. 312. — nimirum carmen hoc in Israelitarum solatium
compositum fuisse, eorumque res aliquo modo adumbrare;
quam ipsum esse VANISSIMUM arbitror: cum morum,
rituum, rerum Israeliticarum mil la vestigia, nullani
speciem, aut umbram repeiio. I dare appeal to your
ingenuity, that I must needs be here meant. And will
"

AND DK. WARBURTON, 1756. 451

•

your politeness allow you to say, that the vamssimum
was civil; or your modesty, that the nulla vestigia was
decent, when I believe most competent readers are
agreed, that there are infinitely more and stronger marks
that the -affairs under the Theocracy are alluded to, than
that Augustus is shadowed under Virgil's hero. Nor
can I well reconcile this dogmatical sentence with what
you say in your letter, of the xo doubtful nature of the
question we are divided about, where you attempt to
shew how little reason I have to be offended with those
who differ from me.

Again you say, Nunquam in dubium vocata fuisset
historic [Jobi] veritas, nisi allegoriarum conquisitoribus
tantum placuissent suae fictiones, ut nihil amplecti vellent
quod non umbratile esset £ commentitium. Now I will
readily allow, that if, by these allegorisers you mean
those who annihilate the literal sense, you could not mean
me ; because, as you observe, I have exposed their folly.
But would it have been more than justice, when you used
such general expressions, to have distinguished my alle
gory from theirs? Again, If it should be asked, Why so
much unwillingness to have the book of Job an allegory,
and so much readiness to admit Solomon's Song to be ah
entire allegory? Could you give a better reason than,
this, that the latter opinion is established orthodoxy, and
the former, yet, a paradox ? But, a word in your ear !
Can you possibly be serious in saying, of Solomon's
Song, omnino esse allegoricum ? I pay you a compli
ment in this question ; though I made it only to shew
you, that I treat you in the freedom and confidence of a
friendly altercation.

To proceed with your letter. The general turn of it
is to shew me, that I arn unreasonable In expecting com
mon civilities from you, in a book where I lay so much in
your way. Now give me leave to think, you seem neither
rightly to understand yourself, nor me. My services to
religion and society seem to intitle me to common re?
spect, when my opinions are controverted and decried,
from every man of letters, engaged in the same cause,
where no personal animosities have intervened. To
neglect this, is not knowing the world : to decline it, must
be from fear of giving offence. If therefore the Author

& & 2 of

452 LETTERS BETWEEN DR^ LOWTH

of the Delicacy of Friendship thought, a writer of so
much caution and reserve, might be as backward to give
offence to me, as to others, and for the same prudential
reasons, he was very excusable, in his conjecture.

But you tell me, you are not afraid of me ; and you
affect to tell me so, again and again. All I will say to
.this is, that whoever injures me may not, at the long run,
have reason to applaud his situation. But no man need
be afraid of him he has not injured. And I am very
ready to believe, that it is a consciousness of that, which
makes you so brave. For my own part, I am not fond
of resenting that, as an injury, which was never intended.

You speak your sentiments of the author and the
pamphlet on the Delicacy of Friendship : allow me to
tell you mine. You make it a kind of question, whether
he be my friend. This is natural. Your notion of the
commerce, amongst learned men, in letters, may make
you a little dazzled with such a friendship, in the com
merce of life. The author, (if I know who was the
author, for the pamphlet was published before I had so
much as heard of the contents) is a man of very superior
talents, of genius, learning, and virtue ; indeed a principal
ornament of the age he lives in : so that was I to wish a
blessing to the man I was most obliged to, I could not
wish him a greater than the friendship of such a person.
And I not only hold myself highly honoured, and obliged
to him, for this mark of his goodwill towards me, but
.think the discourse very serviceable to men of letters, if
they would condescend to make a proper use of it. He
tries, in the finest irony in the world, to shame them out
of that detestable turn of mind, which, either out of a low
envy is unwilling to give merit its due, or out of mean
and base apprehensions, dare not doit, for fear of its being
.unacceptable to their superiors: and it was impossible
for him to have chosen a properer object of his satire than
the man he has chosen. The only thing blamable, and
which, by the way, is the only real ground of offence, is his
extravagant commendation of me. And if the generosity
and immoderate, warmth of a friendly heart will not
.excuse him (as it would be a wonder if so unexperienced
. a thing, .should) I know myself so well, as to be conscious,
he has nothing better to urge.

To

AXD DIL WARBURTON, 1756, 453

To draw to a conclusion. You say, I am at liberty to
pursue my own measures, if your opinions stand at all
in my way* I will assure you, they do not. If I had
any purpose of examining them, it was only while I
thought myself injuriously treated. You assure me I was
not The negligence of it, I can very well bear.

However, you advise me to respect myself and the
public. How ready I am to follow it, you may under
stand by my past conduct. Can more respect be shewn
the public, by an author, than by never giving any thing
to them but what he deemed of high importance to the
interests of religion and society? And can juster respect
be shewn to myself, than, when I have been attacked, in
the most injurious manner, by above a hundred scribblers'
of all ranks aad professions, never to commit myself with
above two <or three ? not to mention that principal respect
to one's self, the never beginning a literary altercation
with any man.

It would answer no end to tell you, what I thought of
the author of the Hebrew Paetry, before I saw him.
But this I may «ay, that I was never >i»nore surprised, when
I did see him, than to find him of so amia&le and gentle
manners, of so modest, sensible, and disengaged a de^
portment It would not have displeased me to find my-
hek* ill used by pedants and bigots.; but it grieved me t$
think, I had any thing to explain, with such a inatiL

You have here, Dear Sir, a faithful picture <rf -my mind ;
frank but honest;; and, if plain, yet generous; above all,
a lover of truth and good men : not the most forbearing
when I think myself ill treated ; but ready to be recon
ciled by the least shadow of a satisfaction.

Such as I am, I am at your service ; that is,

Your laithful and very obedient servant,

W. W.

LETTER III.
TO THE REV. DB. V.

D£AR si«, Winchester, Oct. 6, \ 756.

I AM in the first place to return you my sincere thanks
for the candour of your sentiments and expressions with
regard to me in several parts of the letter with which I

& G 3

454 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. LOWTH

am favoured : for your readiness to allow that I had no
formed intention of misrepresenting you ; to believe that
1 was conscious I had not injured you ; to admit of the
least shadow of a satisfaction ; and (if 1 do not flatter my
•wishes by interpreting your words too much in my favour)
even to honour me with your friendship. Your remain
ing still unsatisfied with my expressions, though you ab
solve me of any ill intention, is a circumstance that makes
your present disposition towards me but the more obliging :
and I should make but an ill return to it, unless I used
my best endeavours to give you- perfect satisfaction.
This task therefore I resume very willingly, and with full
confidence of succeeding in it.

1 was not informed that your complaint extended to
any part of my book beside the Lectures on Job ; so could
not think of looking after any other passages that might
be liable to suspicion. But you begin with p. 64, £c.
As you have totally mistaken my design throughout this
passage, and many of my expressions, the readiest way
to satisfy you with regard to it, will be to ascertain iny
meaning. My purpose was to shew, that the sacred
poets, in describing the state of the dead, make use of
sensible images taken from their manner of sepulture ;
and to give the reasons why they describe it in this
manner, and in this only : namely, because the subject is
really inexplicable in any other way ; because we have
no idea of the metaphysical nature of the soul, of its
form, situation, and manner of existence in a separate
state ; because, from the nature of the human faculties,
the inspired writers could have no advantage above
others in this case ; and because they had no systemati
cal metaphysics to help them out, and to enable them to
talk themselves and others, as the modern philosophers
do, into a persuasion that they really know something of
the matter. These I say were the reasons for their in
variably expressing themselves in this way ; not that they
wanted the knowledge of the permanency of the soul after
death, as certain learned persons have held. — So much
for the course of my reasoning in general : now for my
particular expressions. " Qualis itaque — haud quia
" hanc cognitionem iis invideretDivina Revtlatio, sed,"&c.
hanc cognitionem, nimirum, qualis ab animis a corpore

sejunctis

AND DR. WARBURTON, 1756. 455

sejunctis vita viveretur, quis, £c. not the general know
ledge of a future state, the plain doctrine of lite and im
mortality ; but the particular knowledge of the essence of
the soul, its manner of existence in a separate state, its
place, form, and condition. I had said but just before,
that the Yates Sacri, the inspired writers, were possess'd
of the belief of the immortality of the soul, and of the
resurrection of the body : here I say that the Hebrews
in general, inspired writers and all, were in the same case
with all other mortals, and wholly destitute of this know
ledge ; that is, not surely of the immortality, but of the
metaphysical nature of the soul I never spoke of
Divine Revelation's grudging the former to any : nor of
the latter, as if it could be a biasing to any, lie so good
now as to review this passage fairly, and see if I am
chargeable with the absurd reasoning, the mistaking the
question, the misrepresentations, and invidious reflections
upon you, which you ioipute to me, I have said, that
the inspired writers (arcd observe that I confine it to
them all along) believed the immortality of the soul ; tho'
certain learned persons have denied, that tliey did believe
it : are you one of those learned persons? have you not
declared your sentiments upon that head, and ia the
affirmative, that the inspired writers had tlie knowledge
and belief of a future stater have not you proved, that
Moses knew the immortality of the soul, and that it is
deducible from his writings } that the prophets gave strong
intimations of it, and gradually revealed it? how then
could you possibly suppose, that you were here meant ?
Have I said one word of the national belief of the Jews,
or of a future state's being contained in, or making a
part of the Mosaic dispensation ; of its being or not being
a sanction of their law, or any thing else, which could
lead you away so totally out of sight of my meaning ?
Have I expressed myself vaguely, inaccurately, obscurely ?
I think, I have not ; at least I profess 'tis beyond my
ability tovdo it better in a language not familiar to me.
Did not you rather read it with prejudice, with an un
reasonable jealousy and suspicion, that determined you
to take offence, whether it was given or no ? But enough
of this, 1 hope. I shall only add, in order to be as
explicit with you as possible, that the author whom I

G c 4 principally

45,6 LETTERS BETWEEN DB. LOWTH

principally had in view was Le Clerc : see his Comment.
Index ad Hagiogr. in voec Immortalitas.

You insist upon the passage p. 321, as meant of you,
and of you only, "because you speak of the things
there mentioned ; and of the Gad from the Machine no
one could speak but you ; because no one else, in their
interpretations of the Book of Job, contended for the
thing understood by it." Now I had not only intimated
to you before, that if my only design had been to destroy
your hypothesis, I should have bestowed my pains to
little purpose, ,by urging an argument that could not affect
it ; for allowing Job to be, as I contend, not a just drama,
but a mere dialogue, your allegory, as far as I can see,
stands just wheue it did before: but moreover, to give
you full satisfaction on this head, 1 had referred you to
two short passages, in which alone you might h-ive found
enough to account for every expression I have there used.
By your not being satisfied, I conclude that you have not
looked on those passages to which I referred you ; per
haps' you had not the books at hand. I will therefore
transcribe them for you. I shall add no more upon this
article, and shall expect to hear no more of it from you,
Calmet, Preface sur Job ; he is recounting the senti
ments of several writers : — " II s'est trouve plusieurs,
Ecrivains qui ont doute cle la verite de Thistoire qinl
contient. Ils traitent de parabolcs & d'allegories tout
ce qui y est raconte. Us veulent que Job, £c. soint do
noms feints & empnmtez; que tout ce recit soit fait a
plaisir ; — une piece dc poesic ; — non ce qui etoit en effet,
mais ce qui pouvoit ctrc. Pour appnyer cette opinion
on releve le rnerveilleux — de cette histoire. Un Prince
puissant, heiireux, &c. (a shurt account of the subject) —
Dieu entre dans cette dispute, paroit clans un tourbillon,
comme Ton dh : Dens e machina\ II juge en favcur de
Job, condainne ses amis, & rctablit le premier clans tout
ses biens. Quoi de plus semblable que tout cela i\ une
Tragedle ? Les Actes, les Scenic, les Person mi ges, le
Denouement, le Jtfdiyeijleuf, tous les Characters, y
sont admirablement bien observez. Les trois premiers
chapitres sont comme le Prelude de la piece. Ils en
expiiqucnt le sujet; ils sent connoitre les personnages.
j.e premier Acre commence au chap. iii. & n'nitau eh. xv.

fee

AND DR. WARBURTON, 1756. 457

Le second Acte commence au ch. xv. £ fin it au ch. xxii.
Le 3me Acte commence au ch. xxii. & finit au ch. xxx.
(Test en cet enclroit qui Died se fait voir, Si fournit le
Denouement de la Tragedie."- —Bishop Hare, note on
PS. cvii. 40 : " Licej.t hie obiter observare librum istum
(Jc-bi) non modo metro, Lit Psalmos, scriptum esse, sed
qertissime Drama sacrum esse ; quod cum aliis argu-
liientiSj turn hoc inaxime constat ; quod si totum librum
in septem asqnales partes dividas, quatuor implent Johns
& tres arj.;.ici ejus, primis capitibus connumeratis, quintain
Jobi.iSs-.iius, sextain Elihuus, septimam Deus." (lie must
mean that these seven parts were strictly speaking seven
Acts\ else how is this the strongest argument, or indeed
'anv argument at all, of its being a drama?) " Elihuus

+j O

Dei causam in se recipit; — Dens vero ipse tandem
introducitur ; — ut moestissimo Dramati Kojarf o?u tandem
felix obtingat/'

P. 312. Here you think I am wanting in decency and
civility with regard to you ; and charge me with talking
dogmatically. I had but just before, in the paragraph
immediately preceding, desired to be understood as pro
posing what I had to say, non quali compcrta ac plane
percepta, sed in opinione posita; and p. 294, had pro-
less- id, tint upon this subject I should rather give the
opinions of others than my own. And here I deliver it
as my opinion, in which as you well know I only follow
many authors generally esteemed to be as competent
judges in this case as any whatever, that the allegorical
interpretation of Job is entirely groundless, or, if 'you
please, false ; for that for my part I cannot find any
traces in it of the manners, rites, or aftairs of the Is
raelites. You say, u you believe most competent readers
are agreed, that there are infinitely more and stronger
marks that the affairs under the Theocracy are alluded
to, than that Augustus is shadowed under Virgil's hero/
A very modest recounting of presumptive votes in your
favour truly? I am as fully persuaded as I can be upon
any such point, that there neither is, was, or ever \\iii
be, I do not say such an agreement of most competent
readers, ^but any one competent reader in the world of
this opinion ; nor can I believe that, with all the prejudice
pf hypothesis possessing you, you can upon recollection

possibly

453 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. LOWTH

possibly think so yourself. — But as for my expressions
"which you object to ; if you had used the same upon a
like occasion in your wriunge, I believe they never would
have been selected as remarkably deficient in point of
civility and decency, nor as the most flagrant instance to
tie found there of the dogmatical.

The next passage in the same page you give up, and
allow that it could not be meant of you ; but think that
1 ought to have distinguished your allegory from that of
others. I should rather have restrained it, by my ex
pression, as well as by the circumstances, to those whom
it only concerned : I should have said qulbusdam alle
gories conquisitoribus ; and I will correct it so, if ever I
have an opportunity. As to my admitting Solomon's
Song to be an allegory, at the same time that I denied
Job to be such; it was, I assure you, neither out of
perverseness with regard to you, nor for fear of appear
ing unorthodox. I think there is a material difference
between the two cases: if you deny Job to be an alle
gory, I see no ill consequence; it stands just where it
did : but if you deny that Solomon's Song is an allegory,
you must exclude it from the Canon of Holy Scripture ;
for it holds its place there by no other tenure. You may
laugh at me, but I am really in earnest in saying, that
I am inclined to think Solomon's Song to be altogether
allegorical; I have »iven my reasons for it; and do not
yet think the difficulties that stand in the way of the alle
gorical interpretation equal to that of supposing, that
Ezra, or whoever they were that settled the Canon of
Scripture, would ever have admitted a loose and profane
poem into the number and rank of their sacred and in
spired writings.

You are pleased to say, " that the general turn of my
letter is to shew you, that you are unreasonable in ex
pecting common civilities from me, in a book where you
lay so much in my way." Give me leave to state my
design, as I imagine more justly : it was to shew you, that
you did not lie so much in my way, as to have made it
either necessary, or proper, or indeed not even extremely
impertinent, for me to have entered into a dispute with
you. If I had really, as you say, neglected paying yoi^
common respect, or declined it for fear of giving offence,

you

AND DR. WARBURTON, 1756. 459

you might easily have suggested to yourself a proper plea
for the prudence and justness of my conduct. To profit
by the experience of others, is the best use one can make
of knowledge of the world : the experiment of paying
you a proper respect on a like occasion had' not suc
ceeded well with others ; a sufficient reason why I should
not try it again. For instance, and it is a case in point ;
the learned and ingenious Dr. Grey gave an edition of
Job, and in his preface had occasion to speak of the se
veral prevailing opinions concerning the design of the
book ; he found himself obliged to dissent from you ; he
expressed his dissent in a decent manner ; he treated you
with candour, civility, and respect. What was the conse
quence ? you were highly offended ; you looked upon him
as an enemy, marked him as an object of your resent
ment, and treated him in a manner equally unworthy of
him and yourself. After this you ought riot to wonder,
if no writer on Job should care to have any thing to say
to you.

To have done with Job: I cannot help noting another
passage of mine upon that subject, which you have intro
duced for no other purpose but to pervert and ridicule it.
I am manifestly speaking p. 326, of an improvement
that might have been made in process of time and by a
succession of writers ; as was the case with the Greeks,
whose advances in this way I observe were very slow :
you dexterously slip in the composer, as if I had said
that he was capable of making it himself; and then laugh
at me for an absurdity of which you are the author. I
mention this as another instance to shew, that you did not
read me with that candour and equity which is every
venter's due. I suppose some friend of yours, who in
the immoderate warmth of his affection resolves to keep
you to himself by setting you at variance with the rest of
the world, had prejudiced you against me, by informing
you, that I had treated you with disrespect. In conse
quence of which, you read my book through with the
same spirit, which you have shewn in your gloss upon
the parts produced in your letter ; and I need not be
surprised to find, that you thought the Author, as well
as the book, made up of perverseness, absurdity, and
nonsense,

You

4<5o LETTERS BETWEEN DR. LOWTH

You guess the true reason of my not being afraid of you ;
and I will give you the reason, why I told you so. After
what your friend had published to the world, and what
you had said yourself (for your demand of an explana
tion was attended with a sort of denunciation of your
resentment, in case of a refusal, or an unsatisfactory
account of myself) I thought it incumbent upon me to
tell you explicitly, and to repeat it, that I was not to
be frightened. I should not have thought of setting forth
my bravery, if I had not first been called a coward, and
accordingly looked upon as one that was to be awed by
menace?.

I have now considered all your complaints ; and since
we are upon the business of expostulation, and as I
hope for the last time, you must give me leave in my
turn to make my own. It is not in behalf of myself,
tut of one for whom I am much more concerned, that
is, my father. In your Julian you bring a heavy charge
against him of uncharitableness. I have several objec
tions to the whole passage, which I shall propose to you
as distinctly as I can.

I. In charging him so severely, you do not quote his
words; or so much as say, when or where these uncha
ritable reflections were made: so that not one in a hun
dred perhaps of your readers will know, where to find
what he has said, and so be able to examine, whether
you have charged him justly or not.

II. You say, that these reflections stand in the place
of a confutation: wli-ereas the confutation precedes them.
Mr. L, charges Basnage with wilfully suppressing the
unexceptionable evidence of an honest contemporary
Heathen, Ammian. Marcellus : which is as much to the
purpose in one line, and will go as far towards invali
dating his judgment upon the case, as all that criticism
•which you have displayed through so many pages.

III. You misrepresent what he has said: I must set
before you his wrords; " sed profecto," ut observat
Is. Vossius, " nullos religfo Christiana infensiores habet
hostes, quam ipsos Christianos :" aut saltern qui nomine
tenus 'Christian! videri volunt : quales sunt Tan. Faber,
Jao, Tollius, aliique istius Commatis Critici. The words

quales

AND DR. WARBURTON, 1756. 46*.

I

quales sunt plainly relate to those only, qui nomine tenus
Christian! videri volunt; and neither of these clauses in
cludes Basnage. If Mr. L. had intended to include him,
he ought to have said, quales sunt ipse Basnagius, Tan.
Faber, &c. or quales etiam sunt T. Faber, £c. or rather
he could not have used at all with any propriety those
words of Vossius, who speaks of sincere Christians
doing disservice to the cause of Christianity : (De SibyL
Orac. cap. xi.) Mr. L. accordingly censures Basnage, as
a Christian and a real friend, for his indiscretion and
perverse opposition in this particular case ; for a conduct
which you allow to be most provoking, and such as
cannot but give offence to every sober reader. His
censure upon him is carried no further than the words of
Vossius, and really amounts to no more than what you
have bestowed on him yourself. Your remarks on what
Mr. L. has said, relate to Basnage only: Faber and
Tollius you leave to shift for themselves ; and they were
not either of them Ministers of the Gospel : so that your
laboured amplification, by which you do all you can to
aggravate the charge of uncharitableness, falls intirdy to
the ground, as being built only on your own unchari
table misrepresentation.

IV. It would have been more generous and just in you
to have acknowledged yourself indebted to Mr. L. for the
application of the meteoric appearance of crosses from
Casaubon's Adversaria to this subject; which, when if
appeared in your more popular volume, was received
with applause, as new and very ingenious ; an applause
which, as you could not but know, belonged to him.

I flatter myself that you will acknowledge the truth of
these remarks ; and expect, that when you give a new
edition of your Julian, you will do Mr. L. common
justice by rectifying all the above particulars.

You conclude your letter with saying something of me
and of yourself. What you say of rne is much more
than I deserve ; but you qualify it by intimating, that von
found rue the very reverse of my book. Let us even
compound the matter between the book and the Author :
abate a good deal of one side and of the other, and I
shall be satisfied. What you say of yourself, of your

designs

462 LETTERS PETWEEN DR. LOWTH

designs and your disposition, I most readily believe to be
true : and assure yourself, that I always have been, and
shall be, as ready to acknowledge upon all proper occa
sions the superiority of your genius, your learning, and
your abilities. I do but join with many other sincere
well-wishers to you, in regretting that you have not some
thing more of the spirit of toleration in literary matters ;
that you are so hasty in taking up your resentments, and
that you treat such as differ "from you in so severe and
so contemptuous a manner.

For myself as a member of the Commonwealth of
Letters, I am a true lover of peace and quietness, rff
mutual freedom, candour, and benevolence. I detest
and I despise the squabbles that are perpetually arising
from the jealousy and peevishness of the genus irrita
ble Script or urn. I am a stanch republican and a zea
lous protcstant in literature, nor will ever bear with a
perpetual dictator, or an infallible Pope, whose decrees
are to be submitted to without appeal, and to be received
with implicit assent Manus licec inimica tyrannis.
My favourite principle is the liberty of prophesying, and
I will maintain it with my last breath.

With regard to you in particular, depend upon my
sincerity when I assure you, that I shall not only always
honour you as a man of the first rank in letters, but shall
be heartily disposed to cultivate ^iur acquaintance, and
to merit your good opinion ; shall be glad of every oppor
tunity of enjoying the pleasure and profit of your con
versation; and most willing to enter into as near aa
intercourse with you as you shall be pleased to permit,
as a neighbour, a member of the same society, and a
friend.

I am, with, great truth and respect,

Dear Sir,
Your most obedient and

Faithful humble servant,

R.L.

A>-D DR. WARBURTON, 1756.

LETTER IV.
TO THE REV. DR. L.

DEAR SIR, Grosv. Squ. Oct. 12, 1756,

I HAVE this moment received the favour of your long
letter of the 6th, it having been sent me hither from
Prior Park.

I had a great deal to say to the contents. In some
places you have shewn. I was mistaken, in others you
have convinced me I was not. And if you have shewn
me I have here and there mistaken your meaning, I have
my revenge very amply, if I could take any pleasure in it,
in* seeing you are as totally mistaken in my moral cha
racter. But you have shut my mouth for ever on the
subject of your letter ; by the information you impart to
me in the conclusion, namely, that the Mr. L. who sent
a few notes to Reading the Editor of the Ecclesiastical
Historians, was your father. I had not the least suspicioa
of it, when I pretended to take your usage of me unkind
ly in your Prelections. Had I known that, I should not
only have forborn complaining, but have applauded your
piety. The injurer of your father's memory (and such
you took me to be, as appears by what you say here)
deserved no quarter from you. And this but gives me
one reason more to esteem you. And that I may not
continue worse in your esteem than I deserve, give me
leave to tell you I am no plagiary of your father's obser
vations. By an odd fancy to a strange unequal writer,
I had read Meric Casaubon's writings thro' and thro'.
And I had finished my book of Julian, and it was half
printed off, when Dr. Jprten wrote me word of this note
of Mr. L's. This is a point of honour in which I am
particularly delicate. I will venture to boast again to
you in this, that I believe no author was ever more averse
to take to himself any thing that belonged to another*
However, I owe so much to your piety, which is really
edifying, as to strike out that note against your father,
the very first opportunity. It is to this likewise, that I
am ready to sacrifice every disgust that some parts of

your

4-4 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. LOWTH

your last might be naturally supposed to give rne; as
where you leave the question between us, and dictate to
me like a tutor or pedagogue on my general conduct
towards others; in which it is not to be supposed you
could be acquainted with the whole of the case, or know
my particular provocations, as in the case of Grey- I
have said to the world, (and they ought to believe me or
disprove me) that I had treated no man roughly, who had
hot first fallen upon me. But I thought it both below
ine, and impertinent in itself, to acquaint the public with
the particulars. In a word, I repeat it once again, that
my using your father with disrespect amply justified you
for every thing I complained of. But (for all I said there,
and when 1 said it) I honoured his memory as one of the
most learned persons of a better age, if he was, as 1
suppose he might be, the author of the Comments, &c.
And be assured, I esteem it not amongst the least of his

I x

services to the public, that he produced you with the rest
of his works. I accept with all cordiality the offer of
your friendship. You know the w^orst of me, and per
haps have given credit to a great deal more than the
worst, I mean the calumnies of my enemies; for tho
future you are to believe only as you find.

I am, Dear Shy

Your very faithful and

Affectionate humble servant,

W. W.

P. S. I am here in waiting. I mention it to you from
a selfish view. Regis of this month is dying. What
should hinder your stepping into his place? it would
surely be' the easier, for there are now three or four
vacancies amongst the Chaplains by deaths and removals,
and it would be an acquisition to me to have you in this
month.

AND DR. WARBURTON, 1756. 46

LETTER V.
TO THE REV. DR. W.

DEAR SIR, Winchester, Oct. 14, 1756.

I CANNOT omit the first opportunity of acknowledging
the favour of your very obliging letter, which is just now
come to my hands.

I was unwilling to open my complaint to you relating
to my father, till I had, as I thought, totally removed the
foundation of your exceptions against me. You allow,
that I had no reason to go out of my way and to pay
you any particular compliment; and you must give me
leave still to aver, that on the other hand I have not, upon
that or any other account, gone out of my way with de
sign to reflect upon you. To what I have already offered
upon this head, I might add that the argument and sub
stance of the Thirty-second and Thirty-third Lectures,
which seem chiefly to give you disgust, were drawn up to
the same effect, as they now appear, some years before
your Julian was published ; as I could prove to you in-
contestably, if required, by the original papers, and by
the testimony of the Bishops of Oxford, Rochester, and
Norwich, and several other learned friends, whom I
consulted upon my wjiole plan. I simply pursued my
plan, and differed from you no otherwise than I did from
many other eminent writers, against whom I could have
no prejudice. I thought there was no need of being
tender in delivering one's opinion upon a subject of such
doubtful disputation as Job : nulli grams est percussus
Achilles. However, since it has happened contrary to
my expectation, in return for your very obliging conces
sion in regard to my father, I will very readily endeavour
to soften or alter any expressions which still offend you,
and which you will mark to me as such, as far as I can
do it consistently with my general thesis. In excuse for
what may offend you in my last, I might allege, that I
have said nothing but what some passages in your letter
gave me, not only a fair opportunity, but a right to say : —
but I am unwilling to resume this subject; and take

VOL, XII. PI H much

466 LETTERS BETWEEN DR. LOWTII, &c.

much more pleasure in returning you my sincerest thanks
for your very obliging expressions of all sorts. Those
of your Postscript are particularly so in every respect ;
and the reason you are so kind as to give for your men
tioning the thing, would really be a great inducement to
me to think of it. But my ambition is at an end ; and
otherwise an attendance of this sort would be extremely
inconvenient to me in my present situation.

I write this in a very great hurry, as you may well
imagine, when I tell you, I am preparing to remove with
my family to Durham the beginning of next week. I
hope I shall there have frequent opportunities of im
proving the friendship which you so generously offer me,
and which I shall highly esteem ; and of demonstrating
in every way which lies in my power the sincerity with
which I am,

Dear Sir, your most faithful

And affectionate humble servant,

R. L.

FINIS.

London •" Printed by Luke Hansard & Sons,
aear Lwcoiu's-liw Fields.

M

m

•^Itra^

W',' :L if, . *Wl

,uV'0'»

E2&fa

*?m

O-CT^V*:

• v;.|

•k-y

5

I

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket

Under Pat. "Ref. Index File"
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU

- -, .

I